Variety and other Hollywood news sources are reporting today that J.J. Abrams is directing the next Star Wars after all. There aren’t any details other than the fact Disney is close to closing the deal with Abrams. So treat this with a degree of skepticism until we see something official from Disney and/or Bad Robot directly.

UPDATE 01/26/2013: Confirmed by Disney and J.J. Abrams

UPDATE: Confirmed!
This joint statement from Disney and J.J. Abrams was released Friday afternoon:

After a bevy of emails and phone calls, the formalities have been wrapped up, and at long last everyone can exhale and properly share the word with an excited Internet. Yes, J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII, the first of a new series of Star Wars films to come from Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy. Abrams will be directing and Academy Award-winning writer Michael Arndt will write the screenplay.

“It’s very exciting to have J.J. aboard leading the charge as we set off to make a new Star Wars movie,” said Kennedy. “J.J. is the perfect director to helm this. Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise. He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience, and will bring that talent to create an unforgettable motion picture.”

George Lucas went on to say “I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.”

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor,” J.J. Abrams said. “I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.”

The LA Times has a new article up called “J.J. Abrams directing ‘Star Wars’: What happens to ‘Star Trek’?”

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

While it’s no secret J.J. was first and foremost a Star Wars fan before getting involved with Star Trek (2009) this goes against what TrekMovie had previously reported in December. Abrams told Empire Magazine that he passed on the other big “Star” franchise out of respect for his work with the Star Trek franchise:

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things. I declined any involvement very early on. I’d rather be in the audience not knowing what was coming, rather than being involved in the minutiae of making them.”

Aaaaaaaand back to mediocrity. For a guy (JJ) who’s been such a vocal fan of what made Star Wars …well classic Star Wars. I’m not surprised or even mad at him or anything for taking the gig. If I were him, I wouldn’t have passed it up at all. But personally I’m just not happy about this inside. It might not be fair but I just feel kinda let down. Then again I dont think Trek needs to go back to the old movie formula after this. I mean unless you really want the franchise to take the big dirt nap. JJ needs to make a 3rd (NOT produce, but DIRECT IT) and then leave it alone and let it go back to television. And for the love of everything holy, tv Trek can steer clear from being anything like Voyager or Enterprise…or TNG for that matter because while TNG was great in its day Trek on tv today should be an awesome mix of TOS, DS9, and BSG.

And for everyone saying they’re glad JJ is jumping ship- a. he hasnt said he wouldnt direct a 3rd movie and b. a change of director for the 3rd film probably wouldnt be so good for this cast who has really enjoyed working with JJ and has said they’ve basically loved the films because of what JJ brought to it. But hey, when a vocal minority is constantly ragging on you and your filmmaking abilities, why stick around when you’re not wanted?

As a longtime Trek fan, I can’t say I’m disappointed. I have always looked ad Abrams’ version of Trek as being like “Star Trek: The RIde”. It’s not the smart, classic Trek that I grew up watching, but an amusement park ride; fun in its own way, but not really Star Trek. I would love to see someone return Trek to a smarter, more thought-provoking franchise with Trek 3, if indeed Abrams is off of it.

Hollywood studios are extremely competitive and see Star Trek and Star Wars as competing franchises. This would be like Christopher Nolan going to direct Spider-Man after the Dark Knight. There is little chance Paramount will want to bring Abrams back for a 3rd movie if he is directing a competing franchise.

I think this is great news for J.J. and his team if it’s true, and I’m a big fan of what he’s done for the Star Trek franchise.

I just don’t understand why people have to label him as a turncoat or traitor. Why the hell can’t he do both if he wants to? Must we really continue some silly ass rivalry that began in the 70s and 80s?

I mean, it’s not as if the man abandoned ship in the middle of filming Into Darkness to take over Star Wars. THAT would be more of a turncoat thing to do.

I swear, I really think Trek fundamentalists look for any excuse to hate on Abrams after he did the franchise a favor.

“I just don’t understand why people have to label him as a turncoat or traitor. Why the hell can’t he do both if he wants to? Must we really continue some silly ass rivalry that began in the 70s and 80s?”

Mainly it has to do with division of talent and attention. If you have a great idea for a space opera and you’re already working on a space opera…..use the ideas on the one you’re on! It’d be one thing if in 5 years, he decided to give SW a shot after he’d said all he had to say in the Trek universe. But he hasn’t. There’s a new Trek on the horizon and it’ll feel like the public he’s moved on to what he really wanted to do in the first place….tell a Star Wars story.

PR-wise, make the deal and announce it after Trek 2 has run it’s course and you’ve passed it off to another producer/director. It’s a slap in the face. You don’t see Madonna announcing a similar album on another label while she’s busy promoting the one she hasn’t even come out with on the label she’s already on do you?

Sounds to me like whatever “loyalty” he asserted a few weeks ago has withered. The other report I read indicated the projected date for SW was 2015, which tells me there’s almost no chance he’d be around for a third Trek movie. And I wonder if Paramount has released him from any further effort on their part, including a presumptive new Mission Impossible flick?

I’ve never bought the argument that JJ is more Star Wars, simply because he was a childhood fan. Watching him speak, and reading his influences I was pleased to see his love for the Twilight Zone. A lot of guys from that show ended up on Trek and brought a lot of the same sensibilities with them and made some of the best Trek eps ever.

I’m a fan of the mystery box. And I loved the film, old trekkie that I am. :)

Good for JJ! Trek and SW are completely different concepts. He can direct both and still do a great job while doing it. Remember, he has a great production team behind him that are first and foremost Trek fans.

Well, good for him. I’m not sure what more can be done with Star Wars… but maybe JJ likes a challenge. I’m wouldn’t mind seeing a Star Wars movie directed by him at all. And it seems Disney is determined to have him anyway. Again, as TM says, nothing’s for certain.

But I’m happy he’s still doing Star Trek. And hopefully it’s a priority over SW (I’m biased that way). I hope whatever schedule is set for the 3rd movie stays pretty much the same.

Oh, yea, JJ will do a great job and I’ll see his SW movie(s) and probably like it/them a lot more than the prequel movies, but YOU DON’T CROSSOVER BETWEEN TREK AND SW…it is not right. It’ like Alabama and Auburn, Lions and Hyenas, Chist and Antichrist, Matter and Antimatter.

Directors can have exclusivity deals with studios, but Abrams has become such a big name he probably negotiated an out in his contract. My guess is he will have to give up some money to Paramount to now jump to Disney, but it probably isn’t a lot in Hollywood terms. The fact is, he definitely had it in his contract to do films with other studios and Star Wars may be considered one of those films. However, Paramount won’t want to keep Abrams on if he’s now working on a competing franchise, so Into Darkness is probably the end of Abrams’ Trek.

63. I disagree. Hypocracy isn’t simply changing a position. He said he wouldn’t ‘t want to be involved. And then apparently changed his mind . That’s not hypocracy. It might be flakiness, but it ain’t hypocrasy. .

Abrams is being a hypocrite. But that’s status quo in Hollywood today. Deny deny deny. Fans have short-term memories about these sorts of things. (Although I still won’t watch SyFy since they cancelled “Eureka”)

maybe JJ is trying to make peace between star trek and star wars. By taking both of them on. Make you wanna be happy with both. Honestly, its his decision but if he can get star wars back on track then maybe there will be alot more sci fi in the works. Thought provoking good sci fi that has been absent for a long long time.

Like I said, there’s more at stake here than Trek. Abrams was working a deal for another Mission Impossible movie (which I, for one, was very much looking forward to), and I can’t fathom Paramount letting him out of an exclusivity deal without some substantial compensation/concessions on his part.

He previously said he didn’t want to *produce*/write/showrun Star Wars. If he’s just *directing* it that’s a slight “out” for him from what he’d said. He’d be directing someone else’s production and someone else’s script.

As long as K/O Paper Products and Damon Lindelof are doing the exec producing of Trek for the threequel, it’ll be fine.

To have one person in charge of both franchises is a huge mistake. I am happy for JJ, who is a Star Wars fan at heart. He never should have done Star Trek, he put the franchise into a place it has no business being. A shallow, vapid universe Marvel Comic books occupy.

JJ can direct anything he wants… he’s not contractually bound to a particular franchise… he’ll do for Star Wars what he’s done for Trek and that’s good for everyone concerned. Those people who believe Trek will revert back to the original timeline or to 80’s style movies if JJ’s out of the way seriously have to get a grip on reality.

Good on him… for boldly taking Star Trek and now Star Wars to the next level of entertainment. Can’t wait to see what he does with it.

Still, look on tne bright side – if this is genuine, then at least we might get a director and writers that give us a Trek reboot with some actual exploring strange new worlds…rather than ‘revenge’ plots.

Its a (semi) free country, so I dont have a problem with him taking on Star Wars 7. I think his directorial style suits Star Wars quite well actually. Good on you JJ.

But…I wonder what this means for a potential next Star Trek movie. Star Wars 7 is scheduled to open in 2015 if Im right. JJ’s going to have to get busy on this asap. And I honestly cant see another 3 or 4 year gap in between Star Trek movies happening again. So who takes over the reigns? Maybe Bob or Alex can man the helm for the next one?

Shock and awe! I’m still processing it. I think it will make Star Wars films better and not sure how it will effect Trek. However, it does seem official now that JJ Abrams is the number 1 most sought after director in Hollywood.

WTF – After all of the recent official denials. I have lost all respect for the man.
*Though part of me isn’t surprised. I always had the feeling that Abrams quietly has seen Star Trek as a “stepping stone” to Star Wars

Well, it seems very unlikely that JJ will be doing the third movie due to compressed timeline that Disney wants to do the third trilogy.

On the plus side, hopefully Orci and Kurtzman will be onboard for the 3rd movie with JJ remaining producer under Bad Robot. Further, it becomes more likely that we will get a 3 year gap so that the next movie can coincide with the 50th anniversary.

Wowza. Star Wars is going to get great again! I love this…but what a double edge sword….he brought Trek back to greatness (with the help of many including our resident producer Bob)…but he’s the guiding energy behind it all….but he is also only one man. He can’t do them both all the time, movie-making is a long process. Something has to give or he’ll burn out on sci-fi. It scares and saddens the hell out of me….but I suspect, after the 3rd Trek movie, JJ will move on.

I hope I’m wrong, it will be a great loss for the franchise…but if it takes 4 years to make a Trek film now, ha, just wait till he gets Star Wars on his plate! Still, congrats to the man, he’ll do an amazing job.

That’s the wrong choice if you ask me. Star Trek is a TV soup opera, it makes all the sense to call JJ to direct it. While Star Wars is meant to be Epic… It is not JJ’s TV style. Zack Synder should be the choice to make it Kurosawa epic that Star Wars deserves. Instead Disney wants exactly what he made over Star Trek.

Also picking JJ will make Star Wars and Star Trek to have the same flavor. They will have the same photographer, the same editor, etc, all the staff that made Star Trek at Bad Robot will do Star Wars. Both will lose identity. I find it so risky.

“WTF – After all of the recent official denials. I have lost all respect for the man.
*Though part of me isn’t surprised. I always had the feeling that Abrams quietly has seen Star Trek as a “stepping stone” to Star Wars”

@EJD1984

I dont think so. Until a few weeks ago, nobody could even know that there would be new Star WArs films in the first place.
For years George Lucas said, that there would be no more films (at least under his rule).
I think that JJ Abrams was indeed with full commitment loyal to Trek, but recently saw this new chance of a lifetime and jumped at it.

I honestly feel the man had no more vision for the true feel of Star Trek than than the last group. Maybe Paramount will wake up and let someone that understands what Trek is run the show. No disrespect to them but I just don’t think they get it. He may well be better off doing Star Wars.

And now the next brand of fan stupidity begins: calling Abrams a traitor. Of all the idiotic things. One CAN direct both Star Trek and Star Wars, folks. They’re both just movies. Those saying “traitor” need a dose of perspective. I, for one, am happy about this.

I do think that both “Star”s can co-exist since I attended a Trek Con in NYC the fall of 1977, dressed as a Klingon (lot easier without the ridges in those days) and walked down the street with a Sandperson to see the 1st Star Wars at a nearby theater.

So yeah, as long as they keep making decent Trek and Wars I can live with J.J. doing whatever he wants!!

Good news for Star Wars, Great News for Trek. I really enjoyed JJ’s Star Trek but let’s be honest it felt more like Star Wars. Nevertheless Abrams has put Star Trek really back on the map and this latest news may help raise the profile of Into Darkness. Hopefully for the third film we can have a director whose enthusiasm for Trek matches JJ’s love of Star Wars. I’d be happy to see Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof continue their involvement but maybe have someone like Bryan Singer direct.

By the way, you folks need to look up the term “hypocrisy,” as it doesn’t apply in this case. The term “hypocrisy” mainly refers to professing high morals or beliefs that one does not practice, such as preaching against alcohol but being caught drinking, or claiming to be pious and religious but then having an extramarital affair. Think “Catholic priests” or “Republican senators.” Changing your mind or taking a job you said you weren’t going to take does not qualify as hypocrisy. Had he said, “I look down on anyone who directs Star Wars films,” he WOULD be a hypocrite. But saying “I don’t want to direct a Star Wars film” and then doing so is not hypocrisy.

#110. “Also picking JJ will make Star Wars and Star Trek to have the same flavor. They will have the same photographer, the same editor, etc, all the staff that made Star Trek at Bad Robot will do Star Wars. Both will lose identity. I find it so risky.”

While I agree this could happen, I think JJ would go predominantly “Lucas” style in his direction, just as he delivered a very Spielberg-like direction to Super 8, and not put his “stamp” on it, so to speak, as he was able to do with Trek.

“Good news for Star Wars, Great News for Trek. I really enjoyed JJ’s Star Trek but let’s be honest it felt more like Star Wars. Nevertheless Abrams has put Star Trek really back on the map and this latest news may help raise the profile of Into Darkness. Hopefully for the third film we can have a director whose enthusiasm for Trek matches JJ’s love of Star Wars. I’d be happy to see Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof continue their involvement but maybe have someone like Bryan Singer direct.”

Agreed, it is such a good news for Star Wars fans. JJ was always a Star Wars guy. I can’t wait to see what he will bring to Star Wars.

As for Star Trek 3, I hope they will find someone who is a Star Trek fan as well as great storyteller.

I’m not very happy. This will hurt Star Trek Into Darkness’ box office receipts. Way to hurt the franchise, J.J. But this may just be a rumor. But I’m not very happy with him right now. Thanks for nothing, J.J.

I’m so sick of this ‘get Trek back to what it was’ talk. If you’re talking television shows, then I’m right there with you but maybe you have short term memory loss if you’re talking about movies. All of the films that were about exploring and were basically 2 hour tv episodes sucked and sane Trek fans understand this. Maybe you just took issue with the glossy SFX that looked like someone actually put money behind them but again, when you go down the line the best Trek films were not about exploring. That’s best left to a television show where you can explore character relationships and the unknown over weekly hour long episodic adventures. Why is this so hard for Trek fans of all fans to understand? We’re supposed to be the smart ones!

Run it through for me bit by bit, detail by detail exactly how this is gonna hurt the returns on Into Darkness.

Melodramatic much?

Also too, I hope JJ stays involved in Trek’s creative process. I don’t know why the #1 qualifying rule for directing a Star Trek movie is you MUST be a fan of Star Trek. Nicolas Meyer and Harve Bennett sure as hell weren’t, and look what happened there.

And before someone mentions Stuart Baird, there’s a difference. Abrams, like Meyer and Bennett, may not have been a hardcore fan, but they all appreciated what Trek was about and held a respect for its longevity. Baird didn’t give ANY sort of damn about Trek and just did what he wanted to do without any consideration as to what came before.

I like it… He’s been about as true to Trek as you can. If you consider he has to please more than die hard trekkers and doesn’t have the original actors to use, you really couldn’t ask for better. There are lots of writers and directors that would screw this franchise up so bad. There are actors that would screw these iconic characters up. So many things can go lame with the wrong team at the helm. Instead of disliking what JJ “screwed up” (which I do not), think about how many things he got right. What the writers got right. What the actors got right.

Maybe its me, but Trek is better off than its been since First Contact. Everything after wasn’t jumping the shark, it was landing it.

Can Paramount finally back up a dump truck of money and let Ronald D. Moore be in charge of the Trek franchise now? I’m not saying write or direct or anything like that, but run the franchise. The dude knows how to run a TV show, and he totally understands the world of Trek, both its great parts and its flaws. He would push for a TV show, without a doubt, and would make sure the movies told a good story with deep characters. This is a real opportunity to put Trek in the right hands after Abrams brought some of the mojo back.

Good, let’s see how the Star Wars fans like when JJ f*cks that up , too.

131- But Meyer and Bennett has the good sense to watch every ep TOS to find out what made ST run, and where to hang a story. This is something Baird and Abrams specifically did not do.
No, you don’t have to be a raging fanboy to direct a ST or SW movie, but you better have a handle on what makes the franchise run and what the fans like about it in the first place.
There is far too much of movie and TV evidence out there to show what happens when you have no idea what makes a franchise that particular franchise.

“Run it through for me bit by bit, detail by detail exactly how this is gonna hurt the returns on Into Darkness.” ~ 128

Conflict of interest. When I worked as a toy package designer, my boss decided to do some freelance for the competition. He ended up being let go due to a conflict of interest. Paramount/CBS has always been in competition with George Lucas. I have a funny feeling J.J. will have to make a choice.

Here’s conjecture but logical: Disney wants JJ bad. They know they have the money but want to pay as little as possible. JJ wants Star Wars bad (which he says he was always bigger fan of as opposed to ST) Talks between teams happen. Offers are made and turned down. Disney claims to be looking elsewhere and will engage other directors but they’re secretly holding out for JJ. JJ’s team plays the game and claims lack of interest in doing it, other projects etc. Counter offer made. More of the back/forth game. Blah blah blah deal signed.

Personally, I support JJ’s decision. I trust what the guy does. I think he’s going to do part 3 of ST and then stop. If SWE7 does well, he’ll probably be on for a Ep 8&9. The question is ‘do we really have to wait until 2016 for JJST3?’ Will Episode 7 have to be completed before moving onto JJST3? WIll work begin on JJST3 before 2015?

Meyer didn’t watch every episode….Bennett did. The smart thing Meyer did is exactly what Abrams did, he collaborated with other people who DO know Trek.

And honestly, if you think JJ f*cked up Trek when it was already dead….if you think that him breathing new life into the franchise (which he did) is the most horrible thing in the world, then there really is no sense in having a debate about it with you.

It is hard to imagine how a new director without any idea or knowledge of Star Trek, will be able to direct a Trek movie. You need to have some sense of that fictional universe & what make it tick with fans.

@136. 136. Jax Maxton, Ron Moore is the best writer/producer out there who should be allowed to run Star Trek, I hope that Paramount will bring him back in some capacity.

I am sure the new Star Wars will be epic because Abrams made Star Trek epic, but this feels like a betrayal. It took them 4 years to get around to Into Darkness, what’s it going to be now, 10 years? I just hope Star Trek doesn’t take a back seat and suffer from it.

“And exactly how would that hurt Into Darkness? People are still anticipating that movie regardless of that news. Hell, if this were true, people would be MORE interested in Into Darkness I’d think.” ~ 144.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I apologize.

Here is what I meant by my statement: CBS/Paramount and ABC/LucasArts are competitors. If J.J. decides to jump over to “Star Wars: EP IV”, CBS/Paramount will force him to choose. Since J.J. has always wanted to work on “Star Wars”, the potential for another one of his version of “Star Trek” will have dwindled. CBS/Paramount will not allow him to do both. Its like Pepsi vrs. Coke.

if this is true we wont see another trek for at least 5 years. he’ll do star wars then probably an original film, then be approached with more projects that would be difficult to turn down. and we finally started to get good movies outa the trek universe too ='[

I could understand that happening at some point if he’s forced into that ultimatum. But still, I don’t know how that would hurt Into Darkness. It may leave Star Trek 3 in a creative spot, but I don’t see that’d hurt the movie coming out in May.

Besides, I think Paramount is not gonna give up J.J. or Bad Robot all together, especially if Into Darkness is a critical and financial success.

Who is lying? If you have been following the “Star Trek” franchise, you would have know that Paramount doesn’t like “Star Wars”. Lol… They have been saying it for years. Paramount wants to beat “Star Wars”.

That would be fantastic. It’s about the only thing that would rekindle my interest in the franchise, as well.

#137

That’s a little unfair. JJ didn’t really set out to make a Star Trek movie. He made a Star Wars movie with Star Trek nouns, and he was very successful. He’ll no doubt be great for SW, not that anything could be worse than the prequels. Personally, while I didn’t much care for ST 2009, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking it was still a better movie than most or all of the TNG films, even if it isn’t really (imo) in the spirit of ST. Even First Contact, the supposed “good one”, was basically action schlock that ruined the franchises greatest antagonist, with a plot that didn’t make any sense and characterization that was greatly at odds with the series.

Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Trek fan because I dont want to be lumped in with all you nuts. A bunch of you are calling him traitor. How utterly ridiculous. He’s a director, that’s all. His job is to direct movies. Good grief people…It’s just a TV show!

Noooo!!!!!
It’s a conflict of interest, isn’t it?
Technically ST is set in the future and SW is set in the past, but both are sci-fis which represent a particular fandom of the genre. Oh heck, why not
Give him Galactica as well. Just rename all sci-fi as “Abrahms-fiction.” If true, he will master the two greatest contributions to the sci-fi genre. Can we say monopoly? Is it possible to helm the command of
Both franchises, one in which you are a clear fan, while maintaining the integrity and spirit of the other? I am nervous. Oh well…Trek will survive.

Wow – a lot of people are actually surprised and disappointed that JJ is directing Star Wars now? Seriously, a lot of you really did not see this coming? My god people – he has been saying since before ST09 that he was never a Trek fan and did not know a lot about this universe…..OK, so be it. He is a Star Wars fan…. he draws a lot of his inspiration from Spielberg and Lucas (to name a couple)…….

JJ brought life back to Trek…..we should be thankful for this, because Trek was literally dying on both the small and large screens. Now there is hope for a new long prosperous life for Star Trek.

Now, the same can be said for the Star Wars franchise……Lucas pretty much twisted this all up, his own obsession was his demise for those last three films – and literally I believe he has lost his “niche” for telling the stories and making quality films…and I think he finally realized it too – which is why Lucas is handing the baton off to Disney and Kathleen Kennedy….to preserve any dignity that is left in that franchise. So, how does one save another one of the biggest Sci-Fi franchises in our history? Bring on board the same guy to saved the other biggest Sci-Fi franchises…JJ Abrams.

Its a smart move… and a plus for LucasFilms Ltd and Disney because JJ has a deeper appreciation for Star Wars than he did/does for Star Trek. Does that make him a traitor – no. I personally think its a stepping stone…Trek was a good learning tool for him to gain inspiration and motivation to bring back life into the Star Wars franchise.

However, we can all pretty much know and agree that Disney/LucasFilm is not going to let Abrams work in both franchises…. Star Trek and Star Wars are too much of a competition towards each other. So, what would be interesting is that who is brought on board to carry on the torch the sequel to ST:ID, and will he/she continue what JJ Abrams has originally envisioned?

If this story comes out as true, J.J. would have gone to the competitor. Even though both franchises fit into a science-fiction category, they are owned by two direct competitors. ABC/LucasArts (Disney) versus CBS/Paramount is similar to Pepsi versus Coke. Once someone works for two direct competitors, the question becomes, “Is there a conflict of interest?”. CBS/Paramount has always wanted to beat “Star Trek”; therefore, they will most likely make him choose. Even though there may be a third movie contract, both parties could walk away as a mutual agreement. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

While I do think this is a good move for JJ, I think “Star Trek” will be looking for a new director, witter, and producer. We will have to wait and see.

The only reason I’m taking this rumor seriously at all is the fact that neither Abrams or Disney have made a statement denying it. Still having a hard time swallowing it, just seems implausible that he’d go back on his previously well reasoned comments on why he’d turn it down.

Seems the only way they could sway Abrams into reversing his emphatic initial denial is that they shoved an incredible script in front of him.

I do think this is a blow to the future of Trek films. I also think that Mr. Abrams somethings confuses secrecy for out right lying. On the plus side, I’d image that this decision places the music of the Star Wars universe into the VERY capable hands of Michael Giacchino who in my opinion is the closest composer modern cinema has to the magic of John Williams. Mixed emotions indeed.

Good news. JJ can shuffle himself off to Star Wars and then they can get Meyer in to get the writers up to speed on a decent script and direct the 3rd movie. We may yet get something that feels like Trek from Bad Reboot. Sorry, Bad Robot.

@149
Either you’re all in or not. This is not MI 4, this is Star Trek. A Star Trek which he revitalized and brought new vision to, I want the man responsible for this directing not producing. And he said out of respect to Trek that he would not be interested in directing Wars, obviously he lied to the fan base. It’s whatever, because I’m sure Wars 7 will be visually fantastic. Hopefully Trek still gets the respectful attention it deserves and doesn’t fall back into mediocrity. I’d like to see Trek 3 before we hit 2020. My question is: is he now considered the “keeper” of Star Wars too? Or is it a one and done thing with the Wars movies in terms of directing? Hopefully the new movies are better than the garbage prequels that Lucas gave us.

Cool! Now that J.J. Abrams is set direct Disney’s “Star Wars Episode VII,” Someone else may direct Paramount’s “Star Trek XIII.” Hope Bryan Singer would direct “Trek XIII.” Either him or TNG’s Jonathan Frakes, who directed 1996’s “First Contact” and 1998’s “Insurrection.” Live long, prosper, and May the Force be with you all! LOL!

Very happy to hear this news. JJ did a great job with the Trek reboot. And I think the Star Wars restart will need as much care. JJ “gets”the material. And he now has experience dealing with rabid fans. All these skills will be needed. We had JJ for 2 films. Maybe we’ll get him again. But he does need to move on to other big challenges. And this is abut as big as they get — for the second time!

Congratulations to JJ and the Supreme Court! This is great news and practically guarantees that SW7 will be worth seeing. I’m Trekker at the core, but there is room in the Verse for more than one franchise. I do hope that we greet this news with optimism for the future of both ST and SW and with gratitude to his team for keeping Trek in the conversation economically and creatively for the past several years.

Wow, I can’t believe all the negativity surrounding this announcement! I don’t mean specifically on this site, but just in general. As excited as I am about this news, it seems clear that Disney has their work cut out for them in convincing the fan base that this is a good thing.

I’m all for it, though…bring on both Trek and SW! Great time to be a nerd. :)

I think its cool. I am happy for him. Well Star Trek 3 will have a brand new director. He will be jumping ship from the franchise. There is no way he is doing both. He has done his bit for king and country. I am sure Orci and Kurtzman will write the third installment and I am sure they will find someone suitable to take over.

All these morons whining about him being a traitor and all that blah blah. He will more than likely produce the third film. As long as he keeps Joel Schumacher. Frank Miller, and Bret Ratner the Hell away from Trek, I will be cool.

This is the opportunity of a lifetime and he should embrace it. I am sure they will find a suitable director for the next Trek. Calm down Nerds.

I love Star Wars and I think JJ is going to be good. He will be doing his own trilogy. You can bank on that.

This is very exciting. Loved the Star Trek reboot, and looking forward the Star Wars VII! I hope they choose to show us what has happened since the revolution. Think of the comic book prequel for THAT story line. I want to see Luke rebuild the Jedi order, and what happens to Leia and Han. What happened to Lando? Will Ewan McGregor appear as Obi Wan?

This is the Biggest news since Lucas stepping down. I find it awesome that one of the biggest tv/film director will be doing Star wars “Hopefully no lens flares” jk. He is a fan of star wars as you can see in his Star Trek Rebbot. We are Safe Geek Squad! Live long and Prosper and May the Force Be with you.

For all we know JJ will only be on board for Episode 7 – leaving him free after to do a final Star Trek film. I guess it depends on the shooting schedules and how much of the pre/post production he is needed for. I doubt he will be like Lucas and be as involved with the sculpture work and the other minutia.

This could be good news for Trek. No doubt Abrams and his crew will be involved, in terms of producing, writing, etc. Maybe he’ll do what he did on Mission and bring in Brad Bird to do his own thing (hint: Brad Bird NEEDS to direct the third Trek).

All you people who are calling Abrams a “traitor” and being generally negative really need to get a life…The man was just given the keys to the Holy Grail of modern cinema, a direct sequel to Return of the Jedi…Who among you wouldn’t jump at the oppritunity to bring back the legendary Han Solo and Luke Skywalker (portrayed by the original actors) to the big screen and right the wrongs of the prequles in what will surely be the most anticipated film of all time? Its the oppritunity of a lifetime.

Besides, who says Abrams is done with ST? At the very least Abrams will be the executive producer of ST 3 with the rest of the creative team intact.

I for one wish him the best of luck in heading up the worlds two greatest franchises.

J.J. Abrams quoting himself said that he said, “Because of my loyalty to STAR TREK…I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things (STAR WARS movies).”

J.J. is the one who brought the high-minded concept of “loyalty to STAR TREK” to the table.

If the SW directing reporting turns out to be true, how is one not to come to the conclusion that J.J. DID want to be involved? And by his own logic that this is because of his DISloyalty to STAR TREK?

K I am a bit grumpy here. The main reason being he said he was loyal to Trek. So basic a whole wad of cash changed his mind in favor of Disney “I wanna rule to universe” Corporation. Great. It makes JJ a hypocrite if he takes it and steals Star Treks best director ever. I will be leading the anti-disney wars movement if this is the case. The only thing that would mildly repair it is if Joss Whedon did the next Trek after Darkness… But who has him??? Oh yeah… Disney who owns Marvel now as well and with it Avengers and Joss.

Terrible news for Star Trek, but great news for Star Wars fans. Paramount will likely cut the relationship with JJ and the Bad Robot team to move in a new direction.. This is entertainment business. He can’t do both.

JJ made Star Trek that I’ve enjoyed for 30+ years cool to the general public and I’m thankful for it. But he jumped to a bigger franchise and it’s hard to blame him for taking an amazing opportunity. Still, this is a major setback because he helped the popularity of Star Trek explode.

Later this year after STID Paramount will find a new producer team and director for ST3. Hopefully they get someone as talented as JJ. .

“Good news. JJ can shuffle himself off to Star Wars and then they can get Meyer in to get the writers up to speed on a decent script and direct the 3rd movie. We may yet get something that feels like Trek from Bad Reboot. Sorry, Bad Robot.”

Hey guys .. They’re making sci-fi movies. For years to come. Let’s be happy! The worse JJ produced movie is light-years beyond the last Lucas produced movies. Fresh blood is needed! All hail Bad Robot!

183. Jax Maxton – Not many people make me laugh. Thank you. I hadn’t thought of Voyager and Enterprise being the collateral damage from the war. I think it’s safe to say that neither Star Wars nor Star Trek was at their best toward the end of their lives. I guess that goes for all of us, really.

I can’t fathom the anger. I just can’t. This news has less impact on me than my morning bowel movement. Then again, I’m not a Star Wars fan at all. I think they’re lost with ANY director if they don’t have a good script, and Star Wars has never had that in my opinion. Much of it has been fun, and the visuals have always been incredible for their time, but the writing never lived up to the possibilities. In some cases it was downright embarrassingly bad.

Frankly, I’m more interested in seeing what Abrams does with Star Wars than I am with Star Trek. Maybe I’ll like it for the first time.

Star Trek Fans are some of the best fan-bases in all of Sci-Fi, but I can say with a fair amount of authority as a trekkie myself, that a great many of them are self-entitled wind-bag whiners who cry when they don’t like what they get.

JJ Abrams is a Good director. He’s light-years beyond anything that George Lucas could ever be.

Well, if JJ Abrams is going to get busy directing “Star Wars” the powers that be at Paramount had better start shopping around for a new director for our baby. I don’t want anyone’s sloppy seconds for this franchise.
You know, Nicholas Meyer isn’t dead yet. He was very young when he tackled “STII:TWOK.” So, let’s see if he’s learned anything over the years and can adapt to this new Trek universe.

I don’t care if he leaves Trek for Lucas’ sandbox, but it is a shame that more up and coming directors aren’t getting a crack at some of these gigs. Hollywood is becoming a very small universe. Not unlike the Star Wars universe. Remember when Darth Vader built C-3PO? pfft…

213- No, that’s a fanboy fantasy.
223- He is not capable of doing both; his other projects are why we have had to wait 4 years for a Star Trek movie.
Paramount can’t be happy with this development and I would not be the least bit disappointed if Abrams does not fulfill his 3rd movie obligation. Star Wars is going to tie him up a minimum of 18 months before he can even consider getting the gang back together and he has other projects in the fire as well.
Paramount would be wise to give Star Trek to someone who can focus on the Star Trek franchise, a lord/overseer similar to Gene Roddenberry/Harve Bennett/Rick Berman type producer as in the old days… these guys had just one plate spinning and it was Star Trek.

They don’t need Nick Meyer to direct the next Trek movie. They need another big name director who’s got some good creative background – a Bryan Singer or some such. I wasn’t expecting JJ to come back for the third movie in directorial capacity, because I expect Trek 13 to be released in 2016. I don’t think he’d be able to direct Trek 13 and do many other projects in that time span. I certainly hope that Bad Robot continues producing and Bob Orci and the others stay on board writing it.

With that being said, I am so looking forward to a JJ Abrams Star Wars. He certainly can do better than Lucas did with Episodes I, II and III.

Believe it or not, Hollywood sees Star Trek and Star Wars as competing franchises. They are both sci-fi space adventures with rabid fan bases. That means there is no way Paramount keeps Abrams on for the 3rd Trek. The Abrams era is over with Trek after this year. If “Into Darkness” makes money, then there will be a Star Trek 4. Paramount wants nothing more than for the Star Trek franchise to succeed as it is the biggest franchise they have. I wouldn’t worry about the future of Trek. Paramount will no doubt find a good director to take the reins.

Here’s hoping ILM can stay at the top of the heap and keep innovating in CG.
Someday we can hope for motion capture actors, facial software. and voice imitations of Shat, Nimoy, Kelley and the gang to bring the real NCC1701 and crew back to the big screen.
Still a few years away.

big deal. JJ was okay for Trek. If he moves on to Wars thats fine. there are others who can direct. Bryan Singer should get a shot at it. I would like Leonard Nimoy back as director. He’s worked with the new cast too.

@243 I agree Singer is a good director. Nimoy of course, but I doubt he would come out of retirement for a heavy gig like directing a movie. Also, I doubt the suits would let an 81 year old man direct their newly-JJ-made-cool-franchise. But it would be awesome and might even have some umph behind it.

Apparently JJ got over his new “loyalty” to Star Trek when Disney offered him enough money.

It’s a great business decision. He’s on his way to being incredibly wealthy. Even more so, that is.

Star Wars had already been sold out to Disney, so it’s not as though the quality of the Star Wars franchise is likely to suffer at the hands of JJ.

Disney will get their wide-appeal popcorn-muncher, and the masses will get lots of flashing lights, explosions and chases set in the Star Wars galaxy. I don’t see that JJ’s reversal changes much, if it’s true. Those of us who would value loyalty to Trek never had any illusions of it from JJ.

But I’ll be seriously pissed if JJ goes after the Battlestar Galactica franchise next.

I can’t imagine Paramount is too happy with this piece of news. I don’t think they’re mad at J.J Abrams personally (as they have obviously allowed him to work with other studios during the life span of his contract) so much as nervous at one of their highly coveted directors helping bitter rival Disney expand its empire (pun intended) during a time when Paramount has just begun to reboot its own “Star” franchise.

Anyone who thinks J.J Abrams will be able to do both are deluding themselves.

Paramount and Disney are bitter rivals. J.J Abrams is a hot commodity. Neither studio wants to “help” the other, especially if both “Star Trek3″ and “Star Wars Episode VII” come out within a year of each other.

I like Abrams a lot and he did a good Trek film, but everything is so slow with him. Maybe if he moves to Star Wars, the Trek will loosen up and we’ll see more TV shows and books and comics and everything else. That may be the best results overall!

I think this way too cool. I am a Trekkie first and foremost
But like any nerd, I do like Star Wars too. I think Abrams did a great
Job with Trek and hope he makes another, and I’m sure his take on Star Wars will be very cool as well. Now how about JJ Abrams directs the Simirillion?! :)

I think this way too cool. I am a Trekkie first and foremost
But like any nerd, I do like Star Wars too. I think Abrams did a great
Job with Trek and hope he makes another, and I’m sure his take on Star Wars will be very cool as well. Now how about JJ Abrams directs the Simirillion?! :)

It is rather wild to have him doing both! Maybe he will bring peace to the whole Trek/Wars battle?!!

I think JJ leaving Trek might be a good thing. By the third film I think he’d be hard-pressed to impress, and probably wouldn’t have a lot of interest anyway. Get an exciting new director and fresh writers kick ass in the third film! Just like Batman, I have no problem seeing other people take a swing at Batman. Abrams and Orci have done pretty well here, let them do Star Wars.

I’m not anti-JJ in any way. I like (not love) what they’ve done so far, but I don’t have any problem with new director and writers for the last film.

But Star Trek belongs on TV. Star Trek is the kind of show that requires long-term character development. It has rarely been at its best in a movie. Star wars films developed characters very poorly. They were always more about the flash and dash, with leit motifs stolen from various films, myths and books, all cobbled together into a clumsy story. The more films they made, the more it was apparent that Lucas had no coherent vision.

Hell, Star Wars fans ought to be having affairs with themselves over this news. I don’t see how Abrams can do anything but improve the quality.

I say good riddance, they can all leave: JJ, Orci, etc. Two movies is enough, look how LOST and FRINGE suffered the longer they all stayed involved. They start out strong, then putter out after a while. Lets get some new writing. producing, and directing talent for the 3rd movie and beyond!

I might go and see his new Star Wars perhaps it will have Data in it as an easter egg in a space scene and the new Captain will say “Engage” when the ship goes to warp speed or whatever they call it in Star Wars.

Maybe we’ll get a nice new reboot of Star Trek back to how it should feel rather than what JJ made it.

I really don’t see how this hurts Star Trek at all… If the into darkness is any good it may drive even more people out to see it, win win… I bet it was unlikely he would have directed 3 anyway. Also who wouldn’t want to direct a killer Star Wars film? In my mind this decision has to be about more than money, as some have stated, give the guy a little credit.

Well hell, why not? He’d be perfect for it. Too bad they didn’t get him before he turned Star Trek into some bastardized version of Star Wars. I love Star Wars. I love Star Trek (maybe a bit more) but I don’t want them mixed together.

And with Star Trek: Either he does both or will just produce Star Trek with a different director. He did a great thing with ST09 and I hope STID will be even better. As long as someone continues his concept/vision, we will be fine.

And BTW, George Lucas should stay as far away as possible from any franchise….

For all you who think he won’t do a third Star Trek, I submit to you that star wars episode 7 WILL BE the third Star Trek film he makes! As if 2009 wasn’t Star Warsey enough! Here’s a though about the name for this next SW title:

The plot of SWVII has been revealed to me in a Force vision! A stormtrooper that blames Luke Skywalker for the death of his wife ( a phlebotomist on the Death Star), goes back in time and blows up Tatooine (JJ hates desert planets) but Anakin survives and stops him before he can blow up Naboo. Qui-Gon gets his legs cut off instead of dying and ends up in a wheelchair. Darth Maul reveals the identity of Palpatine before he dies, so Palpatine is arrested. Since Palpatine isn’t around to get Luke’s parents together, Luke (who has a Flux-Capacitor on his X-wing) has to get them together at the “Enchantment Under the Gungan Sea” dance, so they can have their first kiss…

I don’t like that he said his loyalty to Trek was keeping him from Wars, and then he switches his mind. I also don’t like that he said back around the promotion of Trek 2009 how he wouldn’t start Trek and then wander away and leave it uncared for as he did with Lost. Seems he’s done both of these unpleasant moves. Disappointing, to say the least.

@249 With that said, I don’t think Paramount treats Star Trek like Disney is interested in treating Star Wars. I think if they did, JJ wouldn’t have directed Trek 12, because he had other projects that wouldn’t have fitted Paramount’s time table.

But really, I’m sure executives at Paramount are upset with the situation. But that has nothing to do with him going to direct another “Star” franchise – it’s because JJ’s going to archrival Disney. By the time Star Wars VII is released, Paramount will have rebooted their “Star” franchise 9 years before hand. And that reboot had nothing to do with competing with Star Wars; it had everything to do with trying to get people interested in Star Trek again.

Star Trek and Star Wars ultimately are competing forces since they’re from two different movie companies. Let’s be real about this: there is no real competiion there. Star Trek into Darkness might make 350 million in the box office (ST09 got to 324 million, if I remember correctly). Star Wars VII will make 500-600 million easy. The only competition there actually is the unnecessary rivalry between hard core Trekkies and hard core Star Wars fans.

Not a huge SW fan since the prequals but this will make me buy a ticket. I think JJ will finish what he’s started with a new ST movie in ’17 or ’18. To call him a traitor is ridiculous and he’s clearly a good fit for SW.

It is a beautiful morning in Istanbul now, and this is just the best piece of Star Trek news to go with it :) I could not be happier to hear this.

What JJ has done with the Star Trek franchise was kill its soul, manage a nice casting, and glue mindless action scenes one after another, and make it look good thanks to ILM. I can’t say that the franchise went any further. A couple of hundreds of million more at the box office does not mean he saved the franchise. There are video game franchises that start from scratch and actually beat those dollars. Has JJ won the hearts of any new audiences with ST 2009, no. Has he mermerized us veteran fans, no. Because of these, I can not possibly imagine that a weathered giant like Paramount could be fooled by one fourth of the money they make single handedly from a super hero movie, when they look at ST 2009, and rate its success. And if they track Star Trek’s brand attributes as in a consumer research, they will see that the franchise did not go terribly further, in spite of all of the dust and fireworks that was there when it was announced that JJ was going to do it.

I am not blaming JJ. He’s a genre. He makes movies like house music. You like it when it is on. But immediately forget about it, and do not feel the urge to talk about it afterwards. That’s the same with Mission Impossible.

Frankly speaking, what we needed was a Nolan approach, and dedication. Someone who was more creative in the preps, someone who believed he could restart the whole thing without blowing Vulcan up and damaging one of the most sophisticated science fiction folklore ever created. God forbid, I am scared how creative JJ can get if he does a Lord of the Rings remake say after 10 years.

I am in favour of a new director and set of writers, to do a reset after Into Darkness, and give us proper Star Trek. Could not be happier to see JJ go. His style does not blend with Star Trek. It’s not a matter of judging his talents, it just is not his stuff. The Trek needs deeper insights and careful nurturing.

See here is my fear of a JJ Wars movie, he is going to just copy and mimick classic 70s 80s Lucas/Spielberg.
Which is what my big problem with Super 8 was.
I think he should have stuck to his guns and just remained a member of the audience like the rest of us.

I had hoped that getting Super 8 out of the way, he would have followed up Trek into Darkness with something truly orginal, that didnt rely on apeing the emotions that 80s films of directors like spielberg, Lucas, Howard, Zemeckis etc etc like what Super 8 did.

And I know a number of you will disagree with what I just said, and that is your right to, but It is also my opinon and it doesnt have to be right or wrong.

Having said that Countdown to Darkness has gotten me even more excited about what we will see in Trek into Darkness, especially the prospects that Capt April will be a big part of the story.

I’ve come to grow fond of what JJ has brought to Trek, and I really feel that him on Star wars will go back to mimcking the likes of Spielberg and Lucas.

Red dead what bitter fued are you talking about between Disney and paramount. I think your mistaken their.
and Paramount willing agreed to hand over the distribution rights to Iron Man, Avengers, Capt America etc in exchange for a nice size check for each movie in those series, and retaining the paramount logo on each of the films in those series still to come.

Perhaps you are refering to the fued between Katzenberg’s Dream Works animation (which is no longer being distributed by Paramount by the way ) and Disney, but there is no bitter fued between Disney and paramount.

Oh and Rival studios help each other all the time.
in fact anytime a new movie comes out, competing studios negoitate to stick their trailers on other studios films.
(its not the theatre chains that make those trailer placement decisions)

Alot of “Rival” studio executives work togeather with each other on various charitable commitee boards.

Heck Paramount and Warner Bros co owned a theatres togeather for well over a decade as recent as 2 years ago.

Speaking of which Paramount has had several premieres in recent years at Disney owned and operated El Capitan.

@273. When it comes to Star Trek movies and deep insight, it resulted in a largely bashed movie – The Motion Picture. The other Trek movies aren’t particularly deep – hell, The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country smacks you right in the face. If you want a Star Trek movie with deep insight that’s going to be popular and show growth in the brand, it’s not going to happen with Gene’s idealistic concept for the Trek universe – in essence, it’s soul.

When you talk about the “soul” of Star Trek, as much as I want to believe we’ll live on a planet where there is no money (just credits) and everybody gets along – it’s a completely unrealisitc ideal. But, it worked in 1966 because that’s when the future was cool and awesome and everybody imagined about having flying cars and monorails in their towns.

Meanwhile, I think Ron Moore put it best on the DVD commentary on First Contact. In so many words, he said Trek should be rebooted. That means eliminating the “sophisticated science fiction folklore” and starting over again. JJ Abrams didn’t damage it by destroying Vulcan in his universe. In fact, it creates a series of very interesting storylines – how do the Romulans react to the loss of Vulcan? How does it affect the Federation? In the 24th Century, assuming the Dominion War would still happen, is it now easier for them to win the war against the Federation?

Do you know the feeling when you see your parents giving your brother or sister a bigger gift on Christmas Day? That is how I felt when I saw this. It is juvenile but yeah, I feel like a jealous 5 year old. I thought you love us more JJ? Why, JJ? JJ!!!

Well if this is true, good luck to JJ! Don’t understand this ‘act of betrayal’/’slap in the face’ stuff from a minority on here – have these people never switched jobs before!?

I think he’ll do a great job for Star Wars and I can’t wait to see it. And if he’s not back to direct a Trek 3 (assuming Trek 2 performs well enough as the box office) then hopefully he’ll be able to serve as exec producer much as he did (very successfully) with Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol.

The Trek franchise doesn’t end with JJ’s directorial availability – it has been around since 1966 y’know!

Hi read thIs on another site and totally agree…
(I have edited it down to reflect my views)

I have been a Trek fan from TOS (I am a 54) all the way up and I stand behind JJ Abrams 100% on his contribution to Star Trek. His 2009 film was loyal to the Trek universe. If anything, people should get down on their knees and kiss JJ’s butt for rescuing the franchise from the steaming heap it eventually became when Voyager (70% of it became a rehash of TNG) and Enterprise (all just so bland until the end of the series ) were shown.

Good luck to him – if this is true. who wouldn’t want the chance to play in the Star Wars Universe! He must have got an offer he couldn’t refuse, and has every right to change his mind as a top Hollywood director.

There are plenty of other great director who can take up the directing reigns for Trek 3 and onwards and keep it fresh and surprising for us all.

I cant tell you how many of my non sci-fi friends, who have teased me throughout the years for being a Star trek fan – who cant wait for Star Trek 2013 since they saw Star trek 2009.

So much for ony wanting to commit to one saga creatively, eh, Abrams?!

Though we can hope from this that with Abrams finally being able to do the “real” Star Wars he always wanted that he either won’t have time to hack the Trek vision to pieces, or will be less inclined to turn it into his “Pet Star Wars” anymore at least…

Yeah,a cheat and a liar. Married to Star Trek but Star War was always his mistress,LOL! Oh well,whatever. Wonder how many will not go see new Trek movie ‘cos of this……which is just stupid btw,as it’s just another movie amongst a lot of others this summer. My list is getting kinda long,lol!

Is this still a rumor? I can understand the business decision on the part of Disney to give the project to JJ: he’s clearly capable of delivering a big budget hit, but the I question his artistic ability to make Star Wars visually unique. JJ has such a strong visual style in his films – lens flare etc.. I am shocked they would go with him with so many capable directors out there – I signed this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/disney-stop-j-j-abrams-from-directing-the-next-star-wars-film

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things.”

He really shouldn’t have said that sentence above. He heavily contributed to make this about “loyalty” to a franchise. Not that I particular care about the Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry. Star Wars is practically only a handful of movies. A comparison between Star Trek and Stargate makes more sense in my opinion. I am waiting for both to make a revival as a TV show (something not as crap as SGU of course). I rather have hours of a series in a year than only 2 hours of a movie every few years.

Personally I don’t really care, if Abrams goes and doesn’t make the 3rd Star Trek movie. I always said, that there are other talented directors/writers out there, who could also do a good job. And because he was too busy, there are four years between the 1st and the 2nd Star Trek movie (2009-2013). With a new director, we may get the 3rd movie in 2015 and not in 2017. That is actually a good argument for getting rid of Abrams.

Even though I know his love for Star Wars is greater and the fact I prefer Prime Trek over Abrams Version, I still admit his film was fun and I will be there on opening night for Star Trek Into Darkness.

I feel it will be a stronger film and Cumberbatch will be amazing. If I come out saying that’s a Trek film then even better, but either way as a movie in it’s own right it should be good. Just a shame Abrams had to change things to make the mainstream love it.

We now know the next Star Wars will be great and we know that the team making the next Trek movie will be new which can be a good thing.

No reason to hate Abrams or Bad Robot for doing this, they must have got an offer they could not refuse.

Paramount need to ensure that after STiD is released and Bad Robot sign off they get someone else as good or better than Abrams etc – They need to pull out all the stops to compete with SW and ensure Trek movies can continue.

Oh I don’t care one or the other to be honest,I love it all! LOL! Of COURSE I’ll see the new Trek movie,and SW,and Spidey,and Avengers,and…..well,anything that’s fun,lol! Now make a Doctor Who movie already!! lol!

J.J., if this is true, CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!! Man, that´s awesome, that`s huge!!!! A Dream come true, what ? Wow!!!! Thanks for what you have done for STAR TREK. Love it completely. You are a great artist & director for me and deserve all the stuff happen to you right now…..i am sure you worked hard for this, and i am sure it was hard for you to resist such an offer…..i can imagine!

So, keep up your passion for the “nerdy stuff” and i respect your achievement in this hard business. Keep up the great work…

Do whatever you want to do……..cheers to you from Germany, Daniel

oh, and party hard with all your guys at BAD ROBOT!!!!!! i think all the people there are blown away by this…….

Hollywood’s talent pool seems to be incredibly small. I mean, there are 300 million people in the USA; yet the same few names keep cropping up directing, screenwriting, etc. Seems very odd, like they all visit the same pub and it’s like, “fancy writing another movie?” “Okay”.

Talking of which, the baffling thing is that this tiny pool of people come out with terrible codswallop like Prometheus, and then you really start wondering what the employment criteria are.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what this new Star Wars comes out like. I’m not bothered whether it’s good or not, not being a “fan”. I am one of that generation who had the life-changing experience of seeing Star Wars as a child (I was 11 in ’77) when movie sci-fi changed forever, but I never really became a fanboy, reserving my fanboyism for Trek and the second life-changing experience of seeing that beautiful new Enterprise on screen in ’79.

Thing is though, Trek was always a communal effort. Despite Roddenberry claiming credit for everything, it was a vision of many minds- Gene Coon, Matt Jeffries, etc etc. But Star Wars is Lucas’s imagination made flesh, love or loathe the second trilogy (not being a fan, I quite enjoyed them as movies, as it goes). So Star Wars without Lucas… it’s a bit like Apple without Steve Jobs.

It’s not as if Star Wars was ever about really great stories or writing. They are good kids’ movies, made special by “the vision thing”. So I can’t really see where they intend to go with it. I suspect that no new Star Wars can ever satisfy the “fans” since they’re generally old people like me who want that sensawunda they felt in 1977 when they were children and, like your first kiss or Beatlemania, that’s a one shot proposition.

Anyway, I dunno. I can’t help but feel that if the half a dozen people in Hollywood qualified to write or direct a movie had a few fewer projects on their plates, we might get a Trek movie more often than once every half decade, and thus manage to tell several Trek stories before the cast are all hairpieces and botox faces. Which would be nice.

Hollywood’s talent pool seems to be incredibly small. I mean, there are 300 million people in the USA; yet the same few names keep cropping up directing, screenwriting, etc. Seems very odd, like they all visit the same pub and it’s like, “fancy writing another movie?” “Okay”.

Talking of which, the baffling thing is that this tiny pool of people come out with terrible codswallop like Prometheus, and then you really start wondering what the employment criteria are.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what this new Star Wars comes out like. I’m not bothered whether it’s good or not, not being a “fan”. I am one of that generation who had the life-changing experience of seeing Star Wars as a child (I was 11 in ’77) when movie sci-fi changed forever, but I never really became a fanboy, reserving my fanboyism for Trek and the second life-changing experience of seeing that beautiful new Enterprise on screen in ’79.

Thing is though, Trek was always a communal effort. Despite Roddenberry claiming credit for everything, it was a vision of many minds- Gene Coon, Matt Jeffries, etc etc. But Star Wars is Lucas’s imagination made flesh, love or loathe the second trilogy (not being a fan, I quite enjoyed them as movies, as it goes). So Star Wars without Lucas… it’s a bit like Apple without Steve Jobs.

It’s not as if Star Wars was ever about really great stories or writing. They are good kids’ movies, made special by “the vision thing”. So I can’t really see where they intend to go with it. I suspect that no new Star Wars can ever satisfy the “fans” since they’re generally old people like me who want that sensawunda they felt in 1977 when they were children and, like your first kiss or Beatlemania, that’s a one shot proposition.

Anyway, I dunno. I can’t help but feel that if the half a dozen people in Hollywood qualified to write or direct a movie had a few fewer projects on their plates, we might get a Trek movie more often than once every half decade, and thus manage to tell several Trek stories before the cast are all hairpieces and botox faces. Which would be nice.

It was Abrams who cited his loyalty to Star Trek as one of the reasons he was not pursuing the Star Wars job. Therefore it is by his own standard that he is now being disloyal. But you are right, it’s just about a couple of movie series, and not genuinely important. But he owes it to the Trek franchise to let an adult direct the next movie while he’s off playing with his Star Wars action figures.

Also, is it wise to make such an announcement before the release of the new Trek film? Some fans and people who only went because of JJ might boycott it in protest….

But, if true, this makes it more likely Khan is in the next one: would JJ leave Trek without having done a Khan film. If so, it would be unfinished business having not utilised the main villain: the best that Trek has to offer. Therefore, either JJ is not going and this news is either false (yet to be confirmed) or it’s true but JJ is not going (he’s doing both at different times)….

So he turned it down initially. And then he picks it up. Maybe he figured later if he dropped some other commitments, like personal Super 8 type films, he could do Wars and not abandon Trek, as far as producing.

But bottom line, most critics of him can’t probably say that if they were producing and directing Star Wars, and the chance to direct Star Trek after Roddenberry said he wouldn’t do any more, you’d do it.

I would imagine that if Mr. Abrams is gone for good, they may want wrap up the alternative universe story arc in the Trek AFTER Darkness.

I would be happy with something simple, like the final scene being the new cast in the original series uniforms on the original series bridge with Pine’s Kirk saying “Mr. Sulu, take us out of orbit, warp factor 1″, with the cut away being the TOS enterprise and maybe some music from Alexander Courage’s score.

He ruined Star Trek. After the Star Wars prequel trilogy there isn’t so much left to ruin in Star Wars but I’m confident he will manage to get even below the standards set by Episode I. That’s how I see it.

Well, look at it this way. Lets say Star Trek Into Darkness turns out to be the kick ass wonderful movie that the buzz says it is. And lets say JJ makes a Star Wars movie that totally blows and rates a 10 on the Jar Jar scale.

Great news for Star Wars, not so great for Star Trek! Hopefully, the writing and production staff will remain the same for Star Trek for at least one more film.
Star Trek was a reboot, and JJ & Co. did a great job. Star Wars is not a reboot, it is a continuation. I’m sure that JJ will do a great job with Star Wars and return it to the glories of the ’70s and ’80s!

I’m sorry, I’d rather have Lucas than JJ. Revenge of the Sith, despite it’s problems, had Lucas sort of shedding the rust of his years… if only, he’d had more proper push-back on his wrong-headed ideas.
Emotionally, I’m just going to shrug it off, as I don’t feel newly betrayed. Star Trek ’09 didn’t ignite a new fury of fandom in me. I didn’t buy any ST ’09 paraphernalia… not even the DVD. Of course, I don’t own much anymore anyway.
As for possible new directors, a new direction for Star Trek… I’d love one in the vein of Master & Commander, perhaps even directed by Peter Weir, if he was interested.

Does J.J. directing Star Wars automatically mean that this is a Bad Robot production? I don’t think so.

Spielberg directed Raiders and the subsequent Indy movies – but they were productions of Lucasfilm and Paramount – no Amblin Entertainment or Dreamworks connection at all.

I’m guessing that J.J. directs this but with no Bad Robot involvement. That allows Bad Robot to continue progress on the third Star Trek, likely with J.J. Executive Producing and a new director taking the helm – hand picked by J.J. of course.

I see Disney wisely following the original Star Wars model of having different directors at the helm of each film.

No matter what, Trek is not dead and the new Star Wars will be infinitely better than the prequels train wreck.

I am trying to think when Disney hopes to have the Star Wars film released – 2015? So if JJ starts on the SW movie in the next few months and allowing for a year in post-production, then the movie will likely be ready Summer 2015 release. However, he could still start directing and filming the third Star Trek movie while the SW movie is in its final stages of post-production. I am allowing for each movie to take about 18 months to make from the moment principle photography starts. I am hoping for a 2016 release of the third Star Trek – date 8 September 2016!

It would certainly be a tight schedule…

Could it be done, if JJ Abrams had the responsibility of just directing the Star Wars movie only? What do you think, Bob Orci?

@ 363. i lol’d :D
exactly my point of view. sure, trek was trek wasn’t great on the big screen and it never reached the visual scope of the last movie but prior 2009 big screen trek at least tried to be not only visuals. for those who think the same read this interview: http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/01172013_robmeyerburnett7.html

I love both Stars (all three, if you include Stargate), and I don’t have any problem with JJ/Badrobot being involved in both. The two franchises are completely different sharing, what, that they both happen to be in space. I don’t see any reason why one should suffer as a result of work on the other – if you look at the history of the two, it could be argued by have benefitted from each other.

I personally feel that Wars would be more difficult to rejuvenate than Trek, due to questions of where you do with the plot (Vader dead, Palpatine dead, Empire crumbling), and the natural connect between the audience and the Trek universe (we’re from he same place), but I wish JJ the best with both.

Again, I’m on a huge project’s deadline so I barely have time to sleep lately as I really wish I could participate more especially with all this hot news.

My take on this news: 100% Negative. JJ has a very identifiable visual style that he universally applies to his work and which I’m sure he will carry over to SW. This blur the distinctions between it and ST. But then again, nothing could be much worse than Lucas’ Prequels so I’ll still pay my ticket to go see it.

299. Disinvited – Yeah, that Rat B##tard Moonves. He should be in the Hall Of Shame instead… alongside Ken Lay, Angelo Mozilo, and Bernie Madoff.. His enshrinement just goes to prove that treachery and perfidy is rewarded in Corporate America.

For those that are saying ‘This is not the Star Trek I grew up with,’ keep in mind that there has always been two different Star Treks; one being the shows, and the other being the feature films.

As much as everyone would like the movies to be a big budget version of the cerebral show, that isn’t going to happen. The models are totally different.

J.J. Abrams created a Trek for movie audiences. If he were creating a television series Trek, which I’m sure he’s capable of doing, the show would have the necessary elements that make television Trek what it is.

I think his vision fits STAR WARS more than STAR TREK, honestly. Maybe we can get someone who’s a little more aligned with Roddenberry’s version of TREK to do the third installment — if it even happens.

Why hasn’t this ‘news’ been confirmed or denied yet? I’ve checked back after seeing the page for the first time several hours ago….why has there been no official announcement? This only makes it worse; if he’s gone, just tell us…

If true, it’s bad timing for the Trek fans who are awaiting an upcoming film. I wonder if they ‘vote with their feet’. I feel inclined to, if this news is true. If it’s a good film, I can always catch it on home release, perhaps.

Ah, I kind of figured JJ Would take a backseat role in Trek after “Into Darkness” anyway (as a producer or something), this just confirms it. Considering how well he did with Star Trek- which he even admitted he was only a casual fan of- It’ll be interesting to see how well he does with his first love, Star Wars.

I’ve been on JJ Abrams side ever since we learnt of his vision for Star Trek and I’ve got to say that after this news I am so disappointed with him.

I totally get why he wants to do it and I don’t think he’s a traitor but…

After saying that due to his loyalty to Star Trek he wouldn’t do Star Wars and then going ahead and doing Wars anyway just seems disrespectful and completely unfair on every single fan that has been with Abrams from the start.

Although this is business when it comes down it, I do think Star Trek has been treated very badly with this news and whilst its great for Star Wars fans, this news won’t do anything but hurt Star Trek’s reputation with mainstream movie goers, this will be seen by many that Abrams has turned away from Star Trek to do the “better” Star Wars franchise.

I hope Abrams has a good reason besides being a fan of Wars as to why he has just flipped all of the fans who have loyally supported his Trek vision from the beginning.

This news makes me feel very cold about the future of Trek and yeah I think as a fan-base we do deserve an explanation otherwise I think perhaps Paramount should start looking for a new creative team. I don’t think he should do both.

Is anyone really surprised by this news? I don’t think Mr. Abrams’ heart was ever in Star Trek. It was a means to an end, and clearly a very successful means. He gave us a good, maybe even very good, but not a great Trek movie. I’ll be standing in line to see Trek Into Darkness, but I’m really fed up with Hollywood’s love affair with dark and dreary, doom-and-gloom movies, and I don’t have high hopes for this one. (You’ve already destroyed Vulcan and Romulus, I shudder to think what’s going to happen in this one.) Good luck with Star Wars, Mr. Abrams, I’ll probably be in line to see that one, too. Especially if you don’t let George Lucas anywhere near the script.

A perfect fit, IMO. ;-)
JJ Abrams made a better Star Wars movie with ST09 than George Lucas did with all three prequels combined.

ST09 had the warmth and focus on character that the SW prequels sorely lacked. If he can bring that particular focus to the ailing SW franchise? It’ll be great once again (as it hasn’t been for me since the original trilogy really… ).

@358. Considering the number of other projects Bad Robot has in the pipe (don’t forget they just announced a Lance Armstrong project a couple of days ago), what’s more likely is that Bad Robot will produce Trek 13, and someone not named JJ will direct. I\This didn’t come out of the blue for Paramount because of BR’s contractual obligations for them, so I doubt they have a lot of concerns about the ability of BR to deliver a third Trek movie. If you think about it, a healthy Star Wars franchise is good for Trek, too – it increases the awareness of Sci-Fi for all brands….

Sadly, this thread demonstrates the worst stereotypical behavior of some of Trek’s most vehement “fans.”

Really, why must JJ Abrams or any other director, producer, what-have-you be limited to a single franchise? Why must it be “either/or” instead of “and”? You don’t think the guy has enough bandwidth, imagination, and management skills to direct both “Star Trek” and “Star Wars”? Why such a two-dimensional, black & white outlook?

And what’s with all the name-calling? “Traitor”…honestly? When JJ Abrams signed on to direct “Star Trek,” did he take some kind of blood oath or something? Did he sign away his right to take on new projects and challenges, to boldly go where few directors have gone before? The guy has a right to develop his career. Why you think you have some say over that is beyond me.

In the past when he said that he had no intention of directing “Star Wars,” that was probably true. Then Lucas sold it to Disney; conditions changed. The opportunity itself changed, and so JJ Abrams exercised his right to change his mind. He made no promises to anyone, so his change of mind violates nothing. It’s his life; it’s his right. You have no say over it.

So, if JJ Abrams does direct “Star Wars,” then I say CONGRATULATIONS to him. I think his input will infuse life into the franchise that, in my opinion, has become ponderous and stale. I’ll look forward to seeing it in the theatres along with the third Abrams “Star Trek.”

If you cannot reconcile yourself to that, then stay out of the theatres. There will be more room for the rest of us, and we’ll enjoy our movie experience more without having to listen to your grumbling.

I think Joss Whedon would do an amazing Star Trek that would fit with Abrams 2 Trek’s perfectly since you don’t want the actors and storyline to be thrown out. I’d love to see these characters get a good send off.

Two years after the events of Into Darkness, the crew of the Enterprise are pulled into a wormhole and are dragged back in time to A Galaxy Far Far Away, where ships are much bigger and there are lots of people running around with glow sticks.

I think he’s a perfect fit for Star Wars. That’s far more his sensibility than Trek. I wish him the best and look forward to whatever he and the gang at Lucasfilm come up with. Trek will be fine. There are plenty of other talented directors out there that would love to get their hands on it.

Quit pissing off about his decision to direct next Star Wars movie ok?

I think his decision will may help Star Trek by bringing Star Wars fanboys into our new movie so they can get better ideas on what JJ Abrans does with the movie. IMHO it is a positive sign for fans in both great sci-fi franchises.

I am a huge Trekkie, and I love Star Wars as well. I am thrilled with his decision!

I love the idiots who actually feel “betrayed”. How is he betraying anything? He directed ST09, he wasn’t a guarantee to direct STiD but he did, and there was no guarantee for him to direct the third and even if he did it was very likely going to be his final involvement in Trek any way.

I loved the new movie and I’m probably going to love the next movie as well. The only real “betrayal” hear is that he is also working on a Star Wars movie which is supposedly controversial because fanboys love comparing the two even though they are entirely different franchises that tell incredibly different kinds of stories. It just so happens they both exist in space and both have “Star” in their title.

On the bright side, maybe this means we can say good-bye to lens flares and hello to a production team and director who truly understands what Star Trek is all about and will give us a real Star Trek film.

He’s only human. If JJ’s a Star Wars fan, especially from his childhood, then good for him. That’s a great opportunity as both a fan and a director.

Star Trek should go on with or without him. TOS cast had 4 directors for the first 6 movies. The II-III-IV ‘trilogy’ had 2 directors, so why can’t the I-II-III reboots have 2?

I think there have been only 3 Trek movies released while new Star Wars films were being made/released (TMP, TWOK, NEM). This should provide some new incentive to push STID really hard and make STXIII damn good.

BTW: All U people out-there whining & cry’in over “LOYALTY” “grow the HELL-UP!” This is a “BUSINESS!” It’s all about the “bottom-line” MONEY. He’s not a “Trekkie!” he’s a director/ business-man. JEEZ! :-(

The line Must Be drawn Here. JJ Abrams has kind of forced a war. Star Trek or Star Wars. Him doing this after saying he would is such a slap in the face. Also him leavening Star Trek makes Star Trek weaker. This is going to be the last Star Trek movie, probably so at least we made it to 12 films.
Pick your side everyone. Star Trek or Star Wars!

#436 Not sure why you think the ST movie series is done just because JJ probably won’t direct it. Look at the Mission Impossible series…JJ came in for MI:3 and breathed some life into it, and then let Brad Bird take over and MI:GP was one of the best in the series. It’s probably better for another director to come in with a different vision.

Loyalty, schmoyalty. Be realistic. Abrams is a movie producer and director and he wants to make money producing and directing movies. Nothing wrong with that, I think. As opposed to ruining Star Trek, which was very wrong, I think. His statement about loyalty to Trek was, in hindsight, just a bargaining move. Understandable from a business perspective.

@438. What nonsense, there no line to be drawn. The guy is also a businessman, and based on the numerous other projects Bad Robot has in the pipe there are probably thousands of people who depend on this guy for their paychecks. JJ isn’st producing and directing all of there, there are numerous other talented people who can run with Trek 13, 14, 15……

Brad Bird. Andrew Stanton (not sure about this one), Neill Blomkamp. Sam Mendes (also unsure), Duncan Jones, paul greengrass, rian johnson. I have no idea. I know movies I like, but does that mean their directors would do a great job on Trek?

It’s a tough call, because I think one needs to balance the light and dark of Trek.

As much as people complain about JJ — the visual energy, the pacing, the brightness, the whimsy of Trek 09 were all pretty fantastic. It could have been dark, dingy and non-descript. .

Frakes did a great job with First Contact. But Insurrection is awful. And it has no resemblance to its predecessor. It’s hard to say what Frake’s style is.

Heck, maybe Kathryn Bigelow wants a break from reality.

And all the “Nicholas Meyer!” people — Meyer didn’t even like Trek, and he had a bit of contempt for the characters. I love TWOK, don’t get me wrong. But I wonder what he’d think of doing Trek now. He hasn’t directed in 22 years. Most recently he’s been writing adaptations of Phillip Roth novels.

Heck, the same people behind Raiders did Crystal Skull — and it was marginally fun but mostly kind of terrible.

I always thought Trek and Star Wars had other things in common. In Star Wars, the good guys wore colourful outfits (when flying), made jokes, and weren’t all white guys — the Empire was all white, all male and, visually, all dark and gray.

Back when Disney purchased Lucasfilm an announced that they were going ahead with eps VII, VII, and IX I said that you could bet that JJ would be tapped to direct. And all I heard was “No way, JJ says he’s not going to direct SW. He’s not going to bail.”

I said that his favorite movie was SW and there was noway he would pass up the chance to play in that sandbox. What I’m surprised about is how the information got leaked BEFORE Into Darkness was released. I’ll bet JJ is pissed.

Personally I too believe he is a better fit for SW. And go ahead and prepare to roast me but would just as soon the movies in the AU stopped here. Get back to television. Tell Star Trek stories in the medium that it’s best suited to.

Back when Disney purchased Lucasfilm an announced that they were going ahead with eps VII, VII, and IX I said that you could bet that JJ would be tapped to direct. And all I heard was “No way, JJ says he’s not going to direct SW. He’s not going to bail.”

I said that his favorite movie was SW and there was noway he would pass up the chance to play in that sandbox. What I’m surprised about is how the information got leaked BEFORE Into Darkness was released. I’ll bet JJ is pissed.

Personally I too believe he is a better fit for SW. And go ahead and prepare to roast me but would just as soon the movies in the AU stopped here. Get back to television. Tell Star Trek stories in the medium that it’s best suited to.

When I first saw SW in the late 70’s in Woodhills CA , I never thought there would any more. Then Empire came out and we heard Lucas would do 9 films (episodes) starting with 4 , 5 and then 6. He then was supposed to jump ahead with 7 , 8 and 9 that would feature the children of Han & Leia. Then go back to 1, 2 & 3 to tell the story from the start. Well we all know how it really turned out and what we got. This could be good news if done right and the films have a great script. Can’t wait for the lens flares….

420… “Though few Trek fans will admit it, most of them like Star Wars as well.”

That depends. I know very few people over the age of 12 who really like the SW prequels. I surely did not. I hope Mr. Abrams remembers that you don’t have to dumb-down dialogue for kids like the prequels (and a lesser extent RotJ) did.

If he wants to do Star Wars let him. Most Trekkers like Star Wars anyway but we simply adore Star Trek it has a bigger heart. It does feel kinda weird for him to do Star Wars, if it’s even true, but look at the job Nicholas Meyer did on Wrath of Khan and Leonard Nimoy on Voyage Home, two of the best Trek films ever with two completely different directors. I love what JJ has done for Star Trek. It’s been given new badly needed life. And now that it has that life it will live long and prosper with or without JJ in the big chair.

452… Nothing against Mr. Orci, but I’d rather have an experienced, respected director for Trek XIII. Otherwise we might get another Stuart Baird / Nemesis fiasco. Now, if Mr. Orci directs something else in the meantime, I could change my opinion.

@ 457: How about Jonathan Frakes as director? Supposedly, he’s a friend of JJ’s AND this could allow a more classic Trek orientation for the third film. Plus, JJ could still produce a third film while helming Ep. VII.

JJ Abrams is not in charge of either franchise. Their respective owners are. It appears that Paramount have afforded Bad Robot – JJ Abrams and co, quite a bit of creative leeway when it has come to bringing Star Trek back to the big screen again. However, Disney and those who are actually in charge of the Star Wars franchise now may not be as “easy going”.

I doubt that JJ will have as much input into the new Star Wars movie as he has had with Star Trek, but I’m not sure that may matter to him. He clearly likes the script enough to want to direct it, but there his responsibilities probably end. From the start, Star Trek has been a Bad Robot production and even BR is accountable to its master.

If I recall, when news was released about George Lucas selling everything to Disney, making another Star Wars movie was just mooted, with a possible release year of 2015. The news was rather vague on whether there was even a proper story outline/script, let alone something that Disney had signed off on. As soon as the news of the sale broke, media were all over JJ Abrams asking whether he would want to direct, produce etc. Everything was vague and JJ Abrams’ production company already had a contract for a franchise that required much of their time and creative input. So why would JJ even consider doing SW? However, it seems that Disney has got it together as in having a proper script that Abrams can do something with and no doubt pre-production is already underway. Now the movie seems doable, without relinquishing necessarily any of his responsibilities/connections with Star Trek.

JJ Abrams always decides on whether to direct or not on a case by case basis anyway.

425, NWS is not the one giving winter storms names.
That is the weather channel doing that on their own, its something they are doing trying to draw viewers away from the local and national news programs.

I work for NWS and I can tell you the winter storm names are not something that NOAA or NWS have anything to do with

So no the National Weather Service did NOT name the winter storm KHAAAAAAAAAN! the weather channel did along with the other cheesy romance novel and tv and movie character names they are using.

I personally see this as a big step forward in a positive way for the long stagnated universe of Star Wars if the story is indeed true.
JJ is a great storyteller and as far as I’m concerned, has revived Star Trek in a way that no one saw coming. He brought our beloved TOS characters back as not only an origin story but as a refreshing reboot full of surprises way beyond the spoon fed mentality that reruns eventually become. And I don’t mean this in a bad way as I have been there from day 1 since Star Trek launched in the 60’s & have enjoyed the spinoffs as well, some better than others, many times over. Star Trek 2009’s success was the shot necessary to open the eyes of CBS in the eventual greenlighting of a new Star Trek series on television. As many have stated, this will be the medium that can allow for slower character development. But in the mean time Star Trek is back in a big way and we have JJ & his brilliant collaborators to thank for this. Basically Star Trek was collecting dust with no hope of anything beyond reflections of what once was. We now have a revived franchise that will move forward provided hate doesn’t destroy the process first. I personally back anything that keeps my favorite franchise alive.
With the intensity & depth that that went into the resurrection of Star Trek, if JJ & company are as a matter of fact accepting the torch to helm Star Wars, I have complete faith that the Force will be very strong. JJ will not allow the Star Trek he reimagined to fade into oblivion either. If indeed he must pass this torch I’m sure discussions will occur to allow for a smooth transition. After all he did eventually come around to have a passion for the Federation of Planets. For the sake of more great Sci-Fi, let’s hope he can do the same for his first passion in that galaxy far far away….

But seriously, JJ does this this a lot. Which, I believe shouldn’t be taken as an insult, but rather a nod to the fans of that particular tribute. I can’t wait for some Fringe/Sherlock/Doctor Who crossover bits!

Well since it seems theres going to be a directorial opening position for the next Star Trek movie, let me once again offer Paramount studios (dunno if Bad Robot will still be involved) my services.

I’ll direct *”Star Trek into Terror” for only 600k! Yes my credits are “small” at the moment (I’ve directed several home movies of my yard and dog and a few G rated movies of my Gf). But I’m a cracker Jack with a sony camcorder and can add a certain “cheap” aesthetic to the film. You have my number. Just ask for Hugh (not my real name). Thank you.

“Young believes Abrams possesses the sense of humor and adventure that “Star Wars” requires, as well as the ability to handle epic drama. “Remember how hard we all cried in the opening scenes of ‘Star Trek’ with the death of Kirk’s father? Apply that level of emotion and turmoil to ‘Star Wars’ and I think we’ve got something to look forward to,” he said. “A ‘Star Wars’ film in his hands seems like a match made in heaven.”

Both Geller and Young anticipate the director’s new take on familiar characters and settings. “I just hope that Abrams can balance his desire to produce a film that he, as a fan, would like to watch with his desire to work collaboratively with the writer, the producers and, of course, George Lucas,” Geller said.”

@483. Oh, come now, the debate has been raging for weeks about the STID story, with good and bad guys jumping back and forth in time and parallel realities. Stopping off in the SW universe should be no issue at all now….

Well good for him. Really. I think he’ll do a cracking job with Star Wars. And you know he’ll still be involved with Trek. He’ll have input on the story. Heck, with the space between Trek films, he may still be able to direct the 3rd one.

Really? What’s the big deal? He always said he loved Star Wars and to be honest who wouldn’t want the chance to direct those films? J.J. and company gave Star Trek a much needed shot in the arm and without them this site probably wouldn’t even exist. So J.J., I hope you have a great time reviving another dying franchise and bob, if J.J. Isn’t available for the next Trek I think it’s time for you to take the helm!

@ 492 – “Also JJ is really a busy man Foix just picked up his new futuristic Cop drama. I don’t think ST 3 will ever get made.”

I think its safe to say that STID, like 2009 Trek, will do very well at the box office. By that very definition, Its safe to assume a 3rd one will be made. Money talks and Star Trek is money.

I can’t see what everyone assumes is a planned trilogy get canned simply because their chosen director walks off. I’m sure they have contingency plans in place. Frankly to suggest that if JJ walks that there will be no third Trek movie is ridiculous on the face of it.

It was terrible when JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars by introducing SPACE BATTLES into the franchise (as long as you ignore Balance of Terror, Doomsday Machine, Ultimate Computer, Yesterday’s Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, All Good Things, most of DS9, large chunks of Voyager and Enterprise, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Final Frontier, Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis)

People do know that directors do have more than one film right? For all we know, he COULD still do a 3rd ST film.

2009 – ST
2011 – Super 8
2013 – ST:ITD
2015 – SW
2017 – ST3

Notice how Trek has had a four year gap and that he directed Super 8 between 2009 and 2013?So we can logically assume that Trek 3 might not happen for another 4 years which could lead to JJ taking the reins again.

Wow, some of us Trekkies really need to unclench the butt cheeks. JJ directing Star Wars (directing doesn’t mean he’ll produce it too) should not conflict with him doing any more Star Trek unless Disney, himself, or Paramount lets it.

If this means that STID is his last Star Trek, so be it. Star Trek will move on without him. Star Trek survived the death of Gene Roddenberry, it survived the removal of Rick Berman, and now it will survive the departure of JJ Abrams.

I’m looking forward to seeing what someone else (who hopefully is more in tune with Star Trek than JJ was) does in this new continuity of Trek that JJ helped create.

same typical star wars BS,stealing and userping all things trek. Oh and lets not forget the D&D aspects that were stolen for the fantasy parts. Completly derived. Lets get ready for yet another sith vs jedi same ol same ol. Yawn.

Seth McFarlane please stand up. I think he’d do a slam bang Meyer-esque vision of Trek…loaded with “in” references…be a great 50tn anniversary gift in 2016…………….ummmmmmmm…… just no crewman “ted”………wait ted could play Bandai…………( theres a 1973 reference for you).

I would like brad bird as director. He made a wonderful iron giant. And he has shown in his Pixar movies, and of course mi4 that he has a good sense of humor while telling a serious and heartful story at the same time. And he has worked already with Abrams as a producer.
So I am for Brad bird.
Second comes joss whedon.

There’s an old adage in marketing: There’s no substitute for being first.

And, if it was your dream to direct a Star Wars movie — and to be the first one to set the vision of a new trilogy, who wouldn’t grab for the gold ring?

If this is true (and that’s a Big IF), hooray for Mr. Abrams! Dreams really can come true and we should give him joy for the honor. We would want the same thing if one of our dreams came true, wouldn’t we?

I have been a fan of Star Trek for decades — mostly TOS and TNG. But, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise had their moments as well. Not all of the movies were great, but what the heck? It was Star Trek in one shape or another.

The new imagining of the Star Trek universe is just that — a new iteration. It is Star Trek in a new shape and I, like so many out there, have enjoyed the new life Abrams, Orci, and the rest have brought to my beloved characters — Kirk, Spock, McCoy and — the most important character of all — the Starship Enterprise.

I’ve also enjoyed Star Wars — there’s room for both. I particularly enjoy some of the books and hope we get to see Jacen and Jaina Solo and Ben Skywalker.

There’s NO WAY Paramount will let the 50th Anniversary of ST pass without a third movie in this trilogy — hopefully followed by a new TV series.

But, there’s another anniversary lurking — the 40th Anniversary for SW in 2017.

Sci Fi fans — let us rejoice and be glad! This is going to be an awesome decade for the two biggest Science Fiction franchises.

And the best thing? My teenaged daughter has inherited my love for both — she’s excited for this year’s ST and SW Episode VII. Yes — these visions live on from generation to generation and, ultimately, isn’t that what we want?

Assuming there is any truth to the rumour, there’s no reason for JJ not to produce Star Trek 3 or for people like Bob Orci to take a bigger role in his stead.

JJ doing Wars is no different from him doing Batman or Harry Potter, frankly. Star Trek has never been a serious competitor, financially, to Star Wars and other than both having space ships, there’s little similarity. Trek fans act like their show is ‘deeper’ and more ‘intellectual’ than Wars, which is untrue when you look at much beyond some of the original shows. Certainly, TNG is one of the most insipid sci-fis put on screen and films like The Empire Strikes Back have a depth most Treks would kill for. Good luck, JJ, if you get it. You made Trek good for the first time since STVI, now work your magic on Star Wars. As a non-Star Wars fan and, until ST09, a disaffected Trek fan, I’m intrigued.

“In the past when he said that he had no intention of directing “Star Wars,” that was probably true. Then Lucas sold it to Disney; conditions changed.” – Aashlee – January 25, 2013

You are woefully uninformed. Abrams said his infamous line in response to Disney sending him a SW treatment after announcing the acquisition.

#449. THX-1138 – January 25, 2013

You and me both. When the news broke that Disney sent him a treatment, I applauded him for his business acumen in pitting Paramount against Disney and vice versa. The derision that was bull-horned when he gave his now infamous Trek loyalty quote was deafening and that’s not easy to do in these parts.

Obviously, as a practical business matter I didn’t/don’t have any problem with him using The Force but then he had to make that unfortunate statement.

Brad Bird:
Good possibility. Maybe they do it exactly like Mission Impossible4. JJ stil produces and Brad takes the directors chair.

Bryan Singer:
Very strong contender. He loves Star Trek and is also mainstream-proven. Probably my favourite.

Seth McFarlane:
Dont know. Just made one movie until now (Ted). More of a comedian guy, although he knows the franchise.

Joss Whedon:
Would be great. Even better than Abrams (although i think the Avengers is totally overrated) But he showed that he can handle a big movie.

Matt Vaughn
Made the only Comic-film i ever cared about (Kick ass).
I think he could handle it.

Brett Ratner:
God, no. Lets hope the X-men desaster won’t repeat itself. But the omen is bad, because in that franchise the director also left after the second movie. Hope Ratner does not jump on the bandwagon again.

Steven Speilberg:
Was not interested in directing the new Star Wars. Thats a sign he might not be intersted in Trek as well. But he is a sci-fi buff, so he would be suitable.
However he might be too big now for Paramount, because he probably does not want to take over a big studio-franchise-film but rather prefer to make personal films.

Quentin Tarantino:
He said he is not interested in Star Wars and probably therefore is not interested in Star Trek either. Furthermore he is the embodyment of an Auteur-director, who makes what he wants, and probably is not interested in big studio-driven franchises.

Michael Bay:
Said that he not really cares about Star Trek. Thank god.

Jonathan Frakes:
Would be a solid choice. Knows the franchise.
However, he made just one good movie (First Contact). Furthermore Paramount probably wants more of a real A-list director. Frakes career never took off after Star Trek and today he directs primarily TV-Episodes.

Uwe Boll: Seriously?

William Shatner:
Paramount has not forgotten how he single handedly almost destroyed the whole franchise with Star Trek 5.

I think this is being blown out of proportion. I think this is how we can read the Empire article: he meant he had loyalty to Trek in that he wasn’t going to take over all of the SW films, completely leaving Trek for SW. He will only direct the first one. Then he can focus on the 3rd Trek.

I think if Abrams wants to do Star Wars then fine but only if he does Star Trek 3 for 2016. i think this would be fair on Paramount who’ve invested so much into him and really launched his career after giving him Trek.

Allthough I wonder if the person that will replace Gustavo over Trekweb when he leaves will be as good at reporting Trek and Scifi news as he is? Then I guess we will have to go to StarTrek.com for Trek news. Or Trektoday?

Trekmovie used to have weekly sci-fi news section covering both TV & movies stories. Anthony should return these sections. On one hand it will keep the site active when there are no movie news & on the other hand, it will provide us with sci-fi related news that are interesting & fresh.

But leaving the site inactive for long periods as it is now, just doesn’t make sense.

Ahmed that is what I think also. This site should expand when Trek news is dead post Scifi news or what other people involved with Star Trek new and old are doing. This site used to be so fun even discussing that type of news. I think Anthony has other things in the fire and doesn’t have time devote to this site anymore. That countdown comic book article said he was a creative consultant.

t’s a question that immediately sprang to the minds of fans of two franchises with Thursday’s news that J.J. Abrams will direct “Star Wars: Episode VII.”

What happens to “Star Trek”?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

With 2009′s big-screen reboot of the beloved television and movie series, Abrams won over a new generation of audiences with a broadly entertaining and accessible take on Gene Roddenberry’s venerable cast of characters — and satisfied hard-core fans by creating a place for Leonard Nimoy to appear as Spock alongside Zachary Quinto’s new take on the beloved Vulcan.

Anticipation for the May 17 sequel is astronomically high. Paramount wisely began stoking interest in “Star Trek Into Darkness” starting late last year, with the release of a plot synopsis, a poster, a teaser, a trailer and then rolling out nine minutes of footage before Imax 3-D showings of Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”

Last month, Abrams revealed the nine minutes to select journalists at a Century City screening room. Two days later, at the Santa Monica offices of his company, Bad Robot, the writers and select cast members — including Zachary Quinto, Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch — gathered to chat up reporters and to show off costumes and props from the upcoming film.

Damon Lindelof, who wrote the script with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, said the early rollout was inspired by director Christopher Nolan’s early reveal of footage from “The Dark Knight Rises.” With four years having passed since Abrams’ first “Star Trek” film, Lindelof said, “there had to be a lifting of the curtain a little bit,” otherwise fans grow suspicious.

With just about 100 days to go before the film officially opens, though, word of Abrams’ defection to a galaxy far, far away — news that met with a decidedly mixed reaction — raises questions about who might direct a third “Trek” film, should Paramount move forward with one, and what role Abrams and his creative partners Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci might play in a future installment.

Abrams’ schedule likely would prohibit him from stepping behind the camera, though there was a four-year gap between “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel. If Abrams does not direct, that could leave either Lindelof or Kurtzman and Orci in the director’s chair, or perhaps another Abrams associate such as filmmaker Matt Reeves, who helmed the Abrams-produced monster movie “Cloverfield” (though Reeves is set to direct “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” for Fox).

It seems for now Abrams’ relationship with Paramount remains strong — every film Abrams has directed or produced since 2006′s “Mission: Impossible III” has been for the studio, where Bad Robot enjoys a lucrative first-look deal.

Still, executives can’t be overjoyed by the idea of Abrams working on “Star Wars” for Disney, especially with the promotional effort for “Star Trek Into Darkness” continuing to pick up steam. At least for the moment, journalists are probably more interested in hearing about how Abrams might further George Lucas’ vision than deciphering the identity of Cumberbatch’s mystery-shrouded villain.

“Like everyone else, I’m sure Anthony is busy with other stuff, beside Trekmovie, but he should not let the site die for weeks & then resurrect it again, only to die again like a cursed Phoenix !!!”

Exactly. Especially when a relevant story THIS HUGE breaks. I get that Anthony needs a lot oft time off, but come on, this is the biggest genre story in the past year.

See my posts above. I suggest we just staring cutting and pasting the articles on this story as we break, because I don’t think we can count on Anthony coming down from the mountain until his 40 days and 40 nights are up.

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.

Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

#570. How can he be ungrateful when their is no news on the biggest Trek story perhaps of this decade, and the creator this web site — who boldly says here — THE source for everything new in Trek — is AWOL once again with no fracking explanation.

I agree with Craiger 100%. If you say you are the best news site for all Trek, then these are the times you need to shine.

Okay, the Times story really just lends a little legitimacy to what has been speculated on here. Even without Star Wars, Abrams is a busy guy. These announcements don’t just pop up out of the blue, and the comments from the Paramount executives suggest there was some discussion of this pripr the the leaking of the announcement. Paramount will make a decision on a third movie based on the performance of this one, and affirmed that if the decision to proceed is made they expect Bad Robot to deliver.It really won’t matter if JJ orr someone else directs, it will get done.

The Trek fan base has been tweaked for a bit now that some creative talent isn’t dedicated to Trek to the exclusion of all other projects, which explains a lot of the ranting about this. Really, whither Star Trek on the part of the Times article is nothing more then speculation at this point.

“It’s known that Abrams does not make directing decisions without reading a completed screenplay, having decided on both Treks relatively late in the process. Any decision on directing a third Trek will likely be made equally late in development.”

I don’t want Seth McFarlane as the next Trek director. He’s more of a comedy-type guy anyway, and he may be too much of a Trekkie to remain objective during the making of the movie without throwing in too many references and canon tie-ins.

As for Jonathan Frakes and Nick Meyer: Frakes is a good director. FC is great, but INS wasn’t. Though I blame INS more on the writing. He’s more of a tv director anyway.

Meyer is a great writer, no question about that. TWOK is still great, but I’m not sure he has the necessary skills to direct a modern big budget blockbuster. His writing abilities could come in handy, though, as that is his strength.

The only thing I take from this news is that it’s gonna take another 5 years for the 3rd Star Trek film to be released.

Yeah, JJ said he didn’t want to do it, BUT I don’t blame him for changing his mind. I’m pretty sure Disney parked a Brinks truck (or two) in front of his house, and he caved. And who wouldn’t? Honestly.

561 MJ. I wouldn’t mind JJ staying on to produce a third Star Trek film, but I think a new director is definitely in order.
My greatest fear, however, is that this time Bad Robot really has bitten off more than it can chew and they will run BOTH franchises into the ground. The final episodes of “Fringe” were just atrocious.
I have a sinking feeling that monetary success is the only kind recognized in Hollywood and people do tune in or turn out for their “product,” at least initially. But there is a real lack of energy and a creative deficiency at Bad Robot sometimes. Like Tarentino, their projects are often based on other movies and TV rather than being any kind of creative vision.
“Star Wars, Episode IV” itself was a mishmash of Old World mythology (an ancient myth called “The Dragon-Slayer”) wrapped up in the language of pulp science fiction with overlays of Star Trek and comic books. There was also a lot of Freudian and biblical stuff thrown in for good measure.
But at least it was George Lucas’s vision. And it was a very powerful vision. I doubt JJ Abrams has a “vision” about anything. If “Super 8″ is his idea of “vision” then Disney has little to rejoice about. Oh, there will probably be some kind of flashy re-boot with plenty of action which will attract the eyes of those who care little about story, but a half an hour after the movie, you’ll remember little of what you’ve seen.
As for the Star Trek franchise, I really don’t want to see it go in a “dark” direction just like a rip-off of “The Dark Knight.” Star Trek deserves better than that. I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek when I suggested Nicholas Meyer. In all fairness, Meyer and Nimoy as directors were OK, but I think they could do better.

The story broke early on Thursday, but now Walt Disney Pictures and Lucasfilm have officially confirmed that J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII! The statement reads as follows:

J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII, the first of a new series of Star Wars films to come from Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy. Abrams will be directing and Academy Award-winning writer Michael Arndt will write the screenplay.

“It’s very exciting to have J.J. aboard leading the charge as we set off to make a new Star Wars movie,” said Kennedy. “J.J. is the perfect director to helm this. Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise. He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience, and will bring that talent to create an unforgettable motion picture.”

George Lucas went on to say “I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.”

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor,” J.J. Abrams said. “I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.”

J.J., his longtime producing partner Bryan Burk, and Bad Robot are on board to produce along with Kathleen Kennedy under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner.

Also consulting on the project are Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg. Kasdan has a long history with Lucasfilm, as screenwriter on The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Return of the Jedi. Kinberg was writer on Sherlock Holmes and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Abrams and his production company Bad Robot have a proven track record of blockbuster movies that feature complex action, heartfelt drama, iconic heroes and fantastic production values with such credits as Star Trek, Super 8, Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, and this year’s Star Trek Into Darkness. Abrams has worked with Lucasfilm’s preeminent postproduction facilities, Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound, on all of the feature films he has directed, beginning with Mission: Impossible III. He also created or co-created such acclaimed television series as Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe.

I love how everyone is ignoring MJ and Craiger’s usual “Where is Anthony?” rant…lol. Except, of course, the always silent K7, who seems to magically be summoned every time MJ posts…usually to back him up or validate his position. Uncanny how that happens” ;) Oh well, have your rant…you’ll achieve no better results this time than you did last…and the time before that. But it is immensely entertaining to watch you continue to try!

I thought it was even more interesting that we haven’t seen Jonboc in ages, and then all of a sudden, stunkill, who hasn’t posted in ages either, posts as well. This has happened before several months ago, and that time it happened just like this time, with Jonboc first suggesting that I am MJ’s sockpuppet, and then shortly after, stunkill posting.

My how paranoid the people get with who’s posting who’s comments. I assure you I’am posting of my own volition with no help from anyone else. And I dont change my name either. I may be highly disagreeable but I’am not that sneaky nor do I wish to be. I stand by what I post.

Maybe not, but at least you can dream about it at the Disney Park, Resort, or Cruise of your whim. This may be outdated but I seem to recall Disney has an air force for its execs too. You’ll be living in the high country.

I am grateful as ever for your full and frank response. I was a huge fan of the “supreme court” prior to Star Trek 09 and so I am always happy to see them have success elsewhere. I just hope Trek is forgotten in the shuffle. INTO DARKNESS will now be creaking under the weight of Star Wars enquiries, the movie will now be held as Abrams’ audition for WARS and that seems a shame for everyone – not least Abrams himself.

One assumes Abrams won’t be back for Trek (1)3 but I hope we retain other key components, such as yourself, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Giacchino etc.

My fear is that our franchise will be overshadowed for longer than this short term media frenzy.

“J.J., his longtime producing partner Bryan Burk, and Bad Robot are on board to produce along with Kathleen Kennedy under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner.”
So does this mean we Will be seeing in the following order
Walt Disney Pictures logo
Lucas Film Logo
Bad Robot Logo
before a long time ago in a galaxy far far away….

If so just doesnt seem right that another production company’s logo after LucasFilm before the star wars episode scroll.

618. I would direct something I am passionate about, and Star Trek certainly falls in that category. but it is such a full time job that everything else would have to be lined up, too. It is the equivalent of a tour of duty abroad away from your family.

I agree with many comments here suggesting that JJ is more suited to the Star Wars franchise than Star Trek.

Now, if JJ went to Star Wars and Star Trek had Joss Whedon directing, that would work for me.

As one person noted, JJ is about the “ride”. Whedon is much better at exploring interpersonal dynamics that make Trek different from Wars. And as for humor, Whedon would bring back some of the humor that made Trek work. Wars, not so funny.

It’s been four years between Trek movies, and in between Bad Robot has taken on a lot of projects. JJ directing was never a given, and it sounds like the core people are still under Bad Robots employ. I’m happy for the SW people, but this does not bode poorly for STID, especially if the film is very successful. Considering there is chatter about bringing SW to TV, this could be the springboard for getting Trek back on the small screen, too. Remember, the rising tide floats all boats….

How can anyone forget all the harm Rick Berman did to Star Trek between Voyager and Enterprise – especially Enterprise? Did you forget about Suliban, secret Future Guy and the Temporal Cold War plot in the first three seasons? If Berman hadn’t been so stupidly intent on havinga 29th Century Star Trek series, we wouldn’t have had 22nd Century Star Trek series ruined from day 1. On top of that, he ran away from the Star Trek name by simply calling it “Enterprise,” because he knew the Star Trek brand was damaged at the end of Voyager. Speaking of Voyager, remember how the Borg as a villian were ruined in that series?

Let’s not forget how the Vulcans were characterized throughout the first three seasons of Enterprise, with no particular reasoning other than the writing staff was bad. Or how they used the Borg (at least that was more logical since they were crashed on Earth) and Romulans at a point when they shouldn’t have? Or how the Xindi attack Earth when they’re a species we’ve never heard of before?

It took Berman to be sidelined for Season 4 for the show to get really good – when Manny Coto was head writer and fixing all Berman’s mistakes. Of course, Berman still reared his ugly writing in the last episode of the show, which doesn’t really qualify as an episode of Enterprise! An episode that was written when they thought the show was going to end with season 3.

So long before anyone can say JJ ruined Star Trek, NO. It was Rick Berman who ruined Star Trek.

You are all so eager to cast your stones at me, which is typycall and none of you know me at all, your so eager to gang up on me with your collective authoritarian collectivism and you dont even know who I’am in your paranoid cyber perceptions.

@623. I hope you get the job, Bob. I know I have been critical of you at times in the past, but much of that is just my stream of consciousnesses anonymous internet poster persona shtick here; but in a serious decision like this with the future of Star Trek at stake, I think you are the best choice to pick this up from JJ.

Abrams will do a bang up job with Star Wars, no doubt. The zeitgeist of Wars seems fully in alignment with his vision.

As an oooooollllld Trek fan (watched every episode first run since the first season of TOS), I’ve got the perspective to say this: Great SF movies have to connect with the underlying mythos of the current culture to capture our imaginations. And we’re no longer in the 60’s, folks. We’ve lost that hopeful ‘forward into the future’ cultural frame. The shadows looming in our waking dreams hint that there *is* no future… instead, we have global warming & endless war. Hence the shift in the flavor of current Trek, reflecting *current* realities.

Abrams choice of the destruction of Vulcan is true to formulations of Trek – a digital reflection (however strange) of current fears. Planetary destruction. The end of a species. There’s our waking nightmare staring back at us from the silver screen – and a lot of fans really didn’t like it. They came hoping for the old myths, and got the new, instead.

So Abrams didn’t break the ur-code of Trek. And won’t, with Darkness, either.

All that’s been lost has been the vision of a hopeful future – and we lost it long before Abrams ever did. To film a happy, shiny vision of peace, love and interpecies amity would have been utterly retro, and utterly false to the current zeitgeist that Trek reflects.

I personally mourn the loss of that hopeful universe. I’ll be curious to watch ‘Darkness,’ looking to see if any vestiges of that 60’s hope for the future manages to surface after all.

@639 “And we’re no longer in the 60′s, folks. We’ve lost that hopeful ‘forward into the future’ cultural frame. The shadows looming in our waking dreams hint that there *is* no future… instead, we have global warming & endless war.”

Some well argued points, sir. But can you tell us why precisely Trek’s vision of hope in the ’60s managed to break through some fairly awful real-world events in that decade, another time of seemingly endless war and everything going to hell, while also addressing those problems for an hour each week? I argue it’s because TPTB at that time dared to do it, dared to look at the hellish world around them AND at the world that could be.

And I argue someone with the right mindset could do the same today. Because hope is far from retro. Hope is a companion. Always with us. And still here… and, “out there. That’a way.”

it´s just the job of a director to make different movies! how good or bad a movie ist depends on the script, not on the director. a good story with a bad director works! a bad story with a good director will not work at all! i think, abrams is a good director, but he is not the “maker” of the new movies. by the way, i like star trek XI, but even if i would not like it, we think to much about directors like about “gods”, who have EVERYthing in their hands. they have not! and even director is just a job. no director will depend his whole life on just ONE franchise. that would be as stupid like an actor, who is just playing ONE role his whole life, although this happens from time to time.

Star Trek is a good example of JJ Abrams knowing the audience. If he is going to direct Star Wars I think this is a good thing. At the moment I see Star Wars as a dog of a franchise that’s in need of a hose out very much like the state Star Trek was in before 2009. Rumor has it that Lucas has outlined the story for 7,8,9, how much room will he have (or any director) when it comes to directing it. Having the Carrie Fisher,Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil in it and trying to relaunch the franchise seems like an awkward situation and probubly a tough gig for anyone who ends up directing SWep7. Just don,t let George Lucas anywhere near it and for Gods sake no child actors.

Its not a conflict of interest….BUT….I feel JJ should not do both simply because….I think he will probably LOSE INTEREST in one franchise or the other trying to do both…and since WARS will be fresher for JJ I bet he will lose interest in OUR TREK and not do the third movie….

Without JJ most of the cast of TREK will feel left out and nervous about doing a third one as well….

And Trek will be back at the drawing boards again instead of having new life and money pumped into it….

What says Mr Orci i wonder….havent had a chance to read all 650 comments yet….

If JJ tries to do two films at same time the similiarity of them both may cause JJ to become Stressed out….

Ironic cuz JJS revival of TREK has made him the BIGGEST most sought after director OBVIOUSLY hes doing something right with TREK…..if he abandons TREK for WARs our Franchise will be in DEEP TROUBLE….

And I think this COULD hurt the popularity and sales of TREK INTO DARKNESS because the REAL WARS fans wont bother to see it knowing JJ will be working on their Movie next they wont care about seeing Trek….and many more casual moviegoers may feel the same way…OR it couldmake TREK INTO DARKNESS more popular as everyone will want to see how JJ does TREK to see how great he will do WARS…..

My Bottom Line on this is that IT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR OUR TREK FRANCHISE and Im KINDA PISSED JJ said hes NOT INTERESTED in doing WARs and is apparently changing his mind or he lied about not wanting to do it….Personally I dont think JJS motive is MONEY I think hes beyond the wanting money phase….for such a new movie director he has really made a big name for himself very fast….SIGH SNIFF POUT…..

HOPE the REST of them dont abandon TREK…..HOPE especially that ALEX and Bob Orci stick around…….sigh….

Well Bob Orci we all LOVE you being here and commenting…..You worked on transformers….and trek…why not wars too if JJ wants you guys to….

BUT…..Personally I am in agreement with those stating that us TREK fans supporting JJ and our franchise definately feel that JJ is just dumping us for the shinier toy…..

Although I like both franchises…..I am fiercely Loyal to TREK feeling it is superior in almost every way…..its not a fairy tale….its one of our few positive dreams of the future….and almost a way of life with its many celebrations of diversity, exploration, tolerance, acceptance and love of close friends and family….While both franchises can have similiar themes and stories the differences are palpable for me….

And when I first heard JJ say he was not interested in doing wars I felt really good that he was loyal to trek and us…..NOW I dont feel that way anymore….I wonder if JJ realizes he may be making many Trek Fans feel very uneasy right now…..Wheres the Great Bird of the Galaxy When we Need him….

Lastly I also have to feel TREK works best as TELEVISION…..and WARS works best as MOVIE spectacle….FRINGE on tv has proved to me you can do MUCH MORE with TV in the way of Epic Arcs Character Development, depth, etc.. IF ITS DONE RIGHT which it rarely is…FRINGE got it right and I am gonna miss that show on TV…..

Maybe JJ can get Wars Right and not abandon TREK….I guess we will find out…DAMN…..

I am happy for JJ. I KNOW he is the best director for Star Wars and he has already proven himself with Star Trek. There is no reason why he can’t handle both. I was actually really disappointed when he originally said he didn’t want to be involved with the new Star Wars. I am glad he changed his mind.

JJ was never going to manage Trek permanently. I think we all knew he was going to do 3 movies and move on. Just be happy he was as faithful to trek canon as he was. He could have did an actual reboot of Trek which would have pissed a lot of us off. Enjoy the JJ trek trilogy, paramount did right choosing him. Name a director that could have made a TOS movie as creative and original as JJ and his team. I’m not sure who is to be credited with the alternate timeline idea, probably Bob or Alex but it wouldn’t have happened without JJ

Probably because I personally did not care about what could happen with respect to the Star Wars franchise…The announcement of the Lucas/Disney deal did not matter…to me.

The recent announcement, regarding Mr. Abrams’ involvement with the Star Wars franchise, on the other hand, does.
If only for the fact that it makes “Star Wars” a little more “desirable” to my eyes…now.

And so, I wonder; will journalists resist the urge to ask questions about Star Wars to Mr. Abrams *during* the marketing rollout of Star Trek Into Darkness?

Will THIS announcement “hurt” the marketing rollout of the next Star Trek?

One thing is for sure; this news, and its timing (as noted by one poster upthread), cannot hurt the Star Wars franchise.

#662 – That’s a great line of wishful thinking, I guess, except for one thing: Damon Lindelof shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Star Wars sequels. After Prometheus, he shouldn’t be allowed near science fiction at all.

I miss the days ofRon Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr et all at times when I see the writers of Trek today who sacrifice story for spectacle.

The last movie had good character moments but the script was incoherent mess. I am hoping for something stronger this time, but if I come saying “THat IS Star Trek” I will be very happy indeed but given the style now I wwil more likely be coming out saying cool movie

668:)
The more people who come out of the cinema saying cool movie the better the chances of Star Trek returning to TV. Star Trek can have some pretty subversive Ideas on Religion,Sex, Empire,Relationships,Race etc. There not the sort of Ideas that sell well to a large audience. But they are apart of the ST identity. Being all Blockbuster is finding another way into peoples heads and when they least expect it ST will slip in and make you think and question who you are what you may believe in and then you start asking questions you may not have normally asked. All we have to remember is ST and its fans are in it for the long haul.

Star Trek can be a big, blockbuster film. It can also be quiet, thematic character pieces and can also be downright parody or everything in between. It’s multi-adaptive to any genre, which is one of the reason it has had legs for decades. Star Wars, by contrast, is a fantasy series, there are certain beats and tones and themes that repeat throughout the movies, which is if Abrams took the same vibe he applied to Star Trek, it’ll fit perfectly in Star Wars. It also fits perfectly in Star Trek but, as mentioned, ANY tone fits perfectly into Star Trek, which is why it’s so good in the first place.

I would like to see Abrams return to complete his Star Trek journey as Director ideally but as Executive Producer at the very least because now we’re halfway through, to give up now would be appalling.

I just want to take a moment to say I am still so very disappointed this has happened. Whilst Abrams has a right to go and so what he likes, I think the way this has been handled has been completely unfair on those Trek fans who’ve supported him and the supreme court. What this has done, a mere 4 or so months away from Star Trek Into Darkness, has made me feel very cold and bitter against JJ Abrams and unfairly so the rest of his team. I know it’s irrational to think like this, both are different, both have and will go on but it always seems that Star Trek is given the rough and unfair treatment, this time its been discarded just because Abrams childhood is presented to him.

@639,641
I’m probably just as old. Before JFK was assassinated and before the War in VietNam ramped up, there was a kind of euphoria about the future, culminating in the 1964-5 World’s Fair and JFK’s pledge to put an man on the moon. Star Trek was conceived in the early part of the decade by guys who were already in their 30’s and 40’s. But by the time it actually aired we were starting to be bombarded by bad news. The last season began to reflect the societal problems of the day, and rather than offer solutions it allowed itself to be sucked into that depressing way of thinking. This probably led to its downfall.
I think most people want to read or view science fiction as an escape. The dystopian stuff is never popular, but it is often remembered. ” “Planet of the Apes,” “Logan’s Run,” “Soylent Green” reflected the nightmares of the times in which they were made, but I think people gravitated to Star Trek on the small screen because it offered an alternative vision or a way out of our problems. And it is still relevant because we are still trying to make that dream come true.
What we need now are visionaries who can at least imagine a better future. Not people who simply adapt old properties with a fresh coating of paint. That’s not science fiction,really, is it?
But the future that Star Trek posits is not exactly peachy. There IS war, constant war out there, but we deal with it. There is also ignorance, trafficking in human flesh, out of control computers, genetically altered superman running amok, greed, slavery and oppression. Average people may not be able to deal with these problems, but as the crew of the Enterprise show us, even though they don’t always win, you have to fight the good fight.
Not even fighting is an attitude that has been inflicted on the younger generation, by television and politics. Be happy with your shiny little boxes. Look at them, stroke them, and talk to them all the time. Don’t allow reality to wrinkle your smooth, unwrinkled little brows. Buy something nice and go back to sleep. Sci-fi should be the medium that tells them to WAKE UP!
And the only filmmakers out there who seem to be intent on doing that kind of story are the Wachowski’s. (I wonder if they are Star Trek fans?)

@675
No, they say: He will produce ST3 and he can direct it if he wants to, but he doesn’t need to. Producing ST3 while directing SW isn’t impossible.

If SW7 is to be released on may 2015 and SW8 will follow on may 2018, then Nov. 2016, two month after ST 50th anniversary would be right in the middle of these two dates and therefore the best time to release ST3. This means JJ has 18 months of time for ST3.

btw. I don’t believe disneys time shedule to be valid. Two years is not enough time between the SW episodes. I expect them to use the three year cycle.

JJ moving on to Star Wars permanently would restore balance to the Force…

But only if he’d let go his grip on Trek and devote himself to Star Wars, which does seem to be something of a lifelong passion for him.

Disney’s Star Wars is where JJ belongs. It’s perfect for him. He’s done Trek a service by reminding Hollywood of the franchise’s commercial potential. And seeing JJ’s version of a Trek movie has been interesting and enjoyable. Now he should move on to his true love and let someone else have a shot at Trek…

You can be CEO Of Coco Cola o You Can be CEO of Pepso Cola, but you can’t be CEO of Coco Cola and Pepso Cola at the same time…Sorry, you can’t.

You must choose between, and Abrams has chosen between: FIRST: Star Wars. Second: Personal Projects. No spot for Star Trek.

And ST needs a new producer who loves star trek, a new producer who says: Star Trek is the FIRST option for me, not the second , not the third option, the first. This man is not Abrams. For Abrams Star Trek is not important, in his second or third option. Only a job.

It’s time for new blood. It’s time for true trekkers in Supreme Court.

i hope paramount lets abrams go in good graces..i’d hate to see him being *forced* to work on Trek. i’m actually kind of glad he’s moved on to Star Wars, since it seems to be his lore anyway. Not that he didn’t do a good job on Trek xi, he did, but it was the set up story and I still think the story itself and how it was presented (ie director’s and writers’ part) wasn’t what made this movie as enjoyable as it was; the cast and the set artists still take the crown for it imo. So I’d like to see someone else take on Trek now and actually make it a great story as well.

For Gods sake, those calling Mr Abrams out on directing a Star Wars film, really should, as Mr Shatner once said, ‘get a life’! Utterly pathetic many of these responses. All this entitlement crap. He owes you nothing! Nothing! Not a damn thing. Directing is a job! And he’s just got a very enticing one which he initially turned dowm, but (by all accounts) was sweet talked into by Lucas and Kennedy. Good for him!

Where did he ever promise you personally that he’d give you three Trek films? Personally I’d be glad if they didn’t use him for the third! He sensibilities are far better suited to Star Wars, than Star Trek. He’s far more adept at wham-bang glitzy looking popcorn entertinment, than he is with thoughtful sci-fi character and idea driven films, like Trek used to be at its best before Paamount decided to throw it to the multiplex 2 second attention span teen crowd!

All this crap that he OWES the fanbase something is nothing but utter selfishness. And you wonder why fans are gven a hard time by the press/publc sometimes?! Really, get your damn heads out the clouds and take a reality check! This is a series of films. Nothing more. It’s not something Holy. They. Are. Just. Entertainment! Trek is based on change and growth and ‘infinite diversity’. So I say a new potential director for NuTrek III is a damn good thing!

You want want to get riled up about something, go join Greenpeace or any other number of worthy charities and do somethimg worthwhile that DOES matter with your time and energy.

Even if SW7 is bad, it will make a ton of money and there will be at least two sequels. You have to hand it to TPTB for SW as they have marketed it so well. The toys, collectables, video games, books, clothing, apps, etc. out there appeal to a wide range of consumers from kids to adults. Trek was never marketed nearly as well and I’d love to see that change. While I’m a bigger fan of 24th century Trek, the Abrams-verse is solid and it has broadened the audience tremendously. A well-done animated series like Batman, JLA, Superman, Gargoyles, etc. could reach out to younger viewers – as well as teens and adults – making Trek accessible to, dare I say it, the next generation.

About the second quote, you could read it as he had to chose one of the other. That he felt if he did SW, he could in no way be involved with ST due to schedules. But he’ll still be involved with Trek at least at a producing level.

For those who think that it’s “pathetic” to complain about JJ’s directing the next SW movie, I would caution the following: People like me who like both ST and SW would have no problems with JJ’s involvement in both or either, BUT FOR the fact that Abrams specifically stated (as reported here) that he believed that his loyalty to Trek precluded him from directing SW 7.

Why on Earth would he have said that, if he didn’t mean it, unless he had simply wanted to use it as leverage in negotiations with Disney — and possibly unless, in his heart, he really didn’t see his loyalty to Trek as paramount?

So, this whole thing is colored by his statement; it’s a bit saddening for those of us who think that Trek should have been JJ’s first and only priority.

But in fact, this is Life in the Big City, where there are apparently no loyalties that can’t be broken, for the right “price.”

I don’t mind that. I just wish I’d never heard JJ use Trek quite so cynically.

I’m waiting for a form of penance from him, and if he can use his pull to do a Trek-SW crossover — studios be damned! — then I will consider it a form of absolution.

Ok, It’s taken a me couple of days, nearly, to digest this news. Now I’m chuckling at that fact that I was so stunned and shocked, like most of fandom,that JJ was chosen and had excepted the director’s mantle for the next SW movie. Mostly because of JJ’s recent declaration of why he would NOT direct an SW movie. And because like most fans the idea of Star Wars and Star Trek being guided by the same vision(ary) just doesn’t…um..compute. But you know? What the hell. Not to get all ‘Kubler-Ross’ here, but I’ve jumped straight from Denial to Acceptance about this. Pardon my tautology, but it is what it is and will be what it will be. What I hope it will be is, ultimately, a move that’ll result in better SW movies AND Star Trek films.

I like SW but there’ve only been two great movies in the franchise. The others range from ok to meh, IMHO. But I’ve been a proud and outspoken Trek fan since the sixties. And while my beloved franchise has definitely had it’s ups and downs, I have been and always shall be a Trekkie. What I’m going to do now is kick back, chill out and wait and see how things turn out.

Live Long and Prosper!
And there just might be some good in whatever is Forced to Be With You….IDIC and all that.

And speaking of prospering, is JJ a billionaire yet? ‘Cause if he isn’t it shouldn’t be very long now. Wow!

@687: unbelievable – what an utterly moronic idea. Here’s an idea (remember those?!) get a proper Science-Fiction writer in. Let him/her spend the time they need to come up with something new which doesn’t involve a villain of the week. Earth under threat. Yet more boring gun fights and explosions. Etc. Something new. Daring. Fresh! Involving exploration and Star TREKing again. Let’s see some strange new worlds up close and personal and spend some time there in a new environment. Meet a different culture. Aliens who aren’t bloody humanoids yet again. It’s almost like they’re scared to not have a villain, as conflict = exciting. And exploration and imagination = boring. Well… not if the story is good enough. But the era of expanding the mind seems to be long gone. Lazy tory telling is in. Get a director who is more targetted towards characters and less towards explosions and Federation fisticuffs!

I tell ya, the current trend of targetting films towards the Xbox and action over decent story teen crowd is really wearing thin, why? Because it’s just about style over substance now. A filmic ‘happy meal’. People are growing up craving conflict and fights and explosions and increasingly becoming bored by anything even remotely thought provoking. Very sad. I actully preferred Trek ‘dead’ then have it become ‘owned’ by the action loving film crowd. Perhaps it didn’t need to be reinvented at all…

I say let a new Director have a go at Trek. Somebody with the balls to do something different that’s just as compelling as the last action fest, but with substance. Something that if you took away the effects it would still tell a good story. Remember those?……

That line “Get a life!” was created by a writer, Robert Smigel (The man literally behind Triumph, The Insult Comic Dog puppet with the tag line “For me to p00p on!”), for his character, a fictional William Shatner, to say in dealing with fictional fans. The real William Shatner had nothing to do with the creation of that line. His only connection was agreeing to perform Smigel’s fictional Shatner role.

When you misattribute this line, you appear to suffer from the same inability to distinguish fiction from reality that you so disparage and mistakenly project onto others.

To be clear, Robert Smigel is the one who told Trek fans to “Get a life!” and it is difficult to gauge his sincerity as he is an insult comic writer who regularly rakes the real Shatner over the coals in the guise of his character, Triumph, which Smigel himself performs.

I just hope the lines between the two universes don’t begin to blur. I love my Trek. I love the clean lines of the ships. I love the pointed sideburns. It’s about humanoids. I love the sense of awe from Kirk and company as they encounter the unknowns of deep space. It’s about discovery. It’s great fun to watch.

I love Star Wars. I love the rugged, dirty, greasy ships with doo-dads cobbled together on their exteriors. I love the simplistic Saturday-morning-serial fun of white hat, black hat, good guy vs. bad guy…good guy always wins. I love the eye candy and the imagination and rubber puppets. It’s also great fun to watch.

My hope is that JJ, with his own creative troup from Bad Robot, can do justice to both and keep the lines from blurring. I think…and I may be wrong, but think, like an artist can paint in oils or acrylics, JJ is fully capable of living comfortably in both universes and giving 100% to Trek….when it’s Trek’s turn. And it’s that excruciatingly long turn around time between Treks that I hate and fear the most.

I’m not really interested in the actual concept of “loyalty” as pertains hereto, as much as I’m interested in why Abrams felt it appropriate to use Trek, apparently, to further his own interests. That’s what bothers me.

Philosophically, pals o’ mine, we use everything we can to further our own interests…. Any one of us who is gainfully employed, in this sense, “uses” the employer to make a living — the get the bucks, the dough, the shekels, necessary, to sustain life.

But it’s one thing to do that, to take a producing gig, to direct two amazing movies, and receive the accolades accordingly, and quite another to issue a statement saying how one loves one’s work so well that one would deem any professional departure therefrom to be a departure — nay, a violation! — of one’s predilictions.

You may say that to a potential employer, but to publicize it? So cynically? To your fans?

Wherefore art thou, JJ?

;-)

They don’t call it Tinseltown for nothing, I know. But I have a right to complain about it when they throw crap at you knowing the result. Or, perhaps even less palatably, not caring one way or the other.

So it’s official! Congratulations to Mr Abrams and Bad Robot! It’s a great thing that the people who were wowed by the works of Lucas and Spielberg and their contemporaries are now bringing these sagas back and, curiously, will likely be more respectful to them than even their creators!

This is good news for Star Wars and actually good news for Star Trek – think of all the Star Wars fanboys who will go to check out a big sci-fI film by the man who’s helming Episode VII!

I loved Abrams’ work on the Missions: Impossible and Super-8, and I’ve rated his work since Alias. I even enjoyed Regarding Henry many years ago. This is a good day to be a scifi fan!

JJ basically decided on Star Trek as his 2nd choice, He problably never even comprehended that Lucas would sell Star Wars to disney and it would be available to direct. He made a commitment to Star Trek and when first approached he chose to stay with Star Trek. But over time i bet he thought this could be my one opportunity to do a Star Wars movie and took it. Bob Orchi said this was the first he heard about this online, if that is true then i bet he shocked everyone with this decision and not only screwed star trek fans but his friends and co-workers as well. I love both but personally i feel that Affleck should have been chosen for SW. I

Okay, so it’s officially ‘official’ now then, I see. I just hope J.J. can give me a decent ‘Star Wars’ instalment eventually. I certainly have faith in the actual current screenwriter of that.

Now…if only the next ‘Trek’ instalment could be written/directed to involve the current cast in some kind of storyline which ends up ‘re-setting’ their ‘alternate timeline’ back to the TOS timeline somehow…and we can continue with some as-yet-unseen ‘5-year mission’ adventures.

Oh, and we could also get a return to something that resembles the original ‘Enterprise’ design too in that case…before the ST:TMP movie ‘refit’ occurred…

Yep! Won’t happen though! I like JJ’s universe, which was created by a team an I see no reason why the whole of Bad Robot should have to stop working on Star Trek because some of them will be working on Star Wars.

According to a bunch nerds here, JJ shouldn’t have been working on Mission: Impossible or Super-8 and should have devoted his life to being Trek-runner.

Most complaints are bulls**t ‘fan entitlement/geek rage.’ And why should the new universe of the reboot films be ‘reset’ in a manner consistent with the lazy storytelling of Berman’s TV era? It’s a different universe and is the main one now, so live with it!

So do we have confirmation of a three picture deal for JJ?
Maybe its like Nolans deal for the Batman trilogy .
there was an expectation that he would do all three films but he wasnt contactually locked .

Hey, some of us are as entitled to ‘fan entitlement/geek rage’ just as much as any fan of J.J.’s and his writers are.

And I certainly don’t want any ‘reset’ timeline to be rebooted in a manner consistent with Berman’s TV era. I want the tone to be similar to the better ‘TOS’ TV era…NOT the ‘Next Gen’ era that he was involved with. Now THAT was an ‘alternate timeline’ universe if ever there was one!

Time will tell what the 3rd ‘Trek’ movie reboot brings, so we shall see. But if it excludes the likes of ‘Keenser’, then that’s a start…

You must be far younger than I. There’s absolutely no way Disney Legal will allow any of their trademarked/copyrighted works appear to endorse a competitor’s product. Now of course, the reverse they might be able to do: “From the Director of STAR TREK in a galaxy far, far, away: STAR WARS: VII”

Nothing wrong with Keenser. Again that’s just nerd rage. The general public had no problem with him and they are infinitely for important than an angry subsection of the fans, who barely register as an interest group.

Paramount have also confirmed Abrams’ continued involvement with Star Trek 3 as producer at the very minimum. So the Trek movies are still in safe hands.

Not to be negative, But anyone think this might be The X-men films all over again? Bryan Singer traded one comic book series for another. He was a big fan of Superman and couldn’t resist. Look what happened to X-men.

Well, it’s officially confirmed. I wont watch the new Trek film in the cinema as a result. If I’m told it’s good, I may rent it later. I’m really not sure where Star Trek, newly reborn, goes from here. We were going to be lucky to get three films. Now, we certainly won’t get more than that and might not even get past two. I just wish the powers that be gave the responsibility to people who actually liked Trek and wanted to make it

719 alec, i won’t be watching either. this coming from a big fan like myself. really disappointed not by the fact that jj goes on to direct SW, i wish him all the best, but i kinda hate the fact we got to be his stepping stone just to get a reaction from Disney. not a good choice to directly adress the fans and just, idk, lie. i wish we had someone loyal on our side.

I know exactly what you mean. Months ago, I said JJ would have to be a fool not to use this in his business negotiations. I applauded him then and I applaud his business acumen now. I don’t applaud his lack of preparation to be ready to deal with his “loyalty” claim/reasoning.

I respect Abrams as an artist and I extremely doubt he’d do anything to mar his own work. But I have to wonder what kind of screws Paramount put to him in the previously reported budget issues and the 3D that he might have in some small way closed the Disney deal in lashing out on a sub-conscious level?

Some unknown personage having a secret genius for the cinema, who also happens to be one of the most ardent fans of Star Trek you can find.

Someone who blindsides the establishment. He comes out of nowhere, leapfrogging talent that’s been waiting in line for the opportunity like an illegal alien on meth.

Who the HELL does he think he is, this guy? Orson Welles?

Oh shut up, you cinematic bureaucrats. He’s been paying his dues as a fan of Star Trek as long as anyone. And while YOU duplicitous mole hunters see merely an opportunity to make your careers, HE sees only an opportunity to make great Star Trek.

But in answer to your question — Yes. Orson Welles! THAT’S who he thinks he is. But he doesn’t eat as many cheeseburgers, and he doesn’t do cheesy magic tricks. No, THIS Orson Welles saves all the bedazzlement and breath-taking for the movie theater! Oh, and when THIS Orson tells you New Jersey is being invaded by aliens…you’d better look outside your window and take notice ‘cuz maybe — juuuuuuust MAYBE — THIS Orson knows a little sump’n sump’n you don’t.

This is similar to the massive controversy when Irvin Kershner, of “Empire Strikes Back” directorial fame, was picked to direct “RoboCop II” in 1989 . Who here remembers the scandal? ;-)

The difference here is that ‘RoboCop” peaked with Paul Verhoeven’s original film. “Star Wars” in its real-life linear-time film order, ended as a steaming pile. Kershner never had a chance with Robo2, whereas JJ simply needs to improve upon ‘Sith’ with a hearty dose of nostalgia for IV, V & VI, hopefully with a decent character-driven story and competent actors.

720. Ahmed: ‘Would you please provide us with the number of focus groups that you organized with the general public to reach to that conclusion ?’

Would you provide me with all the non-fan, mainstream websites pouring hate over Keenser? When you hang out in the pub, do you hear people spewing bile over Keenser in that Star Trek movie? You can’t? Why? Because no one outside of a bunch of weird so-called ‘fans’ really singled him out as anything other than a minor background character with only a couple of minutes’ I was aware of the character, but barely noticed him. I guess, given the lack of sense of humour these fans have about Keenser, they must be TNG fans!

‘At this time & age, you can’t simply dismiss the fan as “an angry subsection of the fans, who barely register as an interest group.”. Word of mouth can make or break a movie.’

Oh what utter bollocks! Trek fans are a trivial interest group. Their contribution to the films’ takings is nice, but the majority of people seeing the film will be mainstream viewers who will be watching Captain America 2 or The Hobbit 2 shortly after and have no knowledge or interested in the politics certain Trek fans obsess about. And nothing I say or anyone else says here will affect box office takings. So I won’t shut up!

I don’t need to trivialise people when they’re already trivial. The difference is, I’m one person and I know I’m trivial. The ‘fan entitlement’ brigade need a good smack on the arse and a reminder that they’re no more than dust I the wind!

After reading all the idiotic whining about loyalty and about Abrams somehow betraying fans, I find myself yet again embarrassed to be a Trekkie. Some of you people here…geesh, you need therapy. Abrams didn’t kill your puppy, he didn’t rape your grandma, and he didn’t eat your action figure. He got a job directing another SF franchise–that’s all!

He didn’t piss on Star Trek or on fans. He didn’t insult us. Those of you weeping and wailing, and especially those who say you won’t see Trek-2 because of this, are idiots or very, very childish. GROW UP.

I hope Abrams gets a whiff of your whiny stupidity and strikes back by digitally inserting Jar Jar Binks into EVERY FRAME of Trek-2, just to piss off you whiners.

On a happier note, it’s good to see that Kasdan is involved. Just keep Lindelof away from the script, and there’s…well, a new hope for Star Wars.

@ 730 – I believe the thinking is that they can make the Star Wars movies every 2 years so I think its safe to say they can have the first out by 2015. I can’t recall if I heard that the script was basically done or not but I’m going to assume that they’ll start shooting by late spring, early summer at the latest.

Actually I was always baffled that it took Lucas 3 years between each movie. The LOTR and Hobbit movies come out every year.

This is really a great time for both franchises. Yes, there are whiners and flamers on both sides who hate each other, but I’ve always loved both universes and now that no one else but one of the singlemost greatest SciFi-geeks-turned-producer/director will be in charge of both franchises, we’ll finally get THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS :-))

@boborci, what do you REALLY think of JJ Abrams decision? Obviously he seems born to direct Star Wars but as a Star Trek fan do you feel a bit awkward about the news and the prospect or certainty that Abrams won’t be involved with Star Trek 3?

Got only one thing to say about the folks in a huff about JJ heading off to direct Episode 7, and promising not to watch STID. Go lie to someone who will believe you. With both franchises under the roof of Bad Robot, we should be heading off to buy tickets for both movies, to better ensure the odds that Trek will be around for a long, long time.

Harry what do you mean Star Trek is toast? If the sequel is a hit then Paramount would probably want to do a new Trek TV series and then do the third film. If the sequel isn’t a hit then I think Trek is toast. Unless Paramount would let CBS reboot for TV and see if they can make Trek a hit again on TV.

Guys, remember the original Star Wars Trilogy? Every new film had a new director. It didn’t hurt the films at all.
Abrams will probably in some ways still be involved, and the micromanagement will be done by someone else.
No big deal.

BTW, i cannot understand those weird comments about the supposed betrayal of Abrams. Star Trek is no girlsfriend on which you can cheat. Its indeed just a job.
Relax.

I honestly don’t get how some of you are so hung up on how old some directors are or the frequency of their working on films as a director.

And how some of you ignore that about one director/writer/producer but throw it in the face when another director/writer/producer is mentioned.

In anycase I have spoken my Personal concerns about JJ possibly going his super 8 route and apeing Lucas/Spielberg of the 70s and 80s in episode 7. Will I still watch inspite of those concerens Heck yeah its STAR WARS, will I end up liking you better believe I will even if it does end up just apeing Lucas/Spielberg 70s/80s style of directing.

But I still would have been much more excited if Affleck had ended up at the helm, the guy is a great director and would have made for an interesting directon for Episode 7 who knows though perhaps we will see him helm Episode 8 or 9 or one of the spin off films.

And yeah I agree with the people who are saying that its crazy that people are throwing betrayl and cheating into the discussion. There was no betrayal of anything lol.

It’s just interesting that JJ changed his mind and decided that he would direct the movie instead of simply enjoy the story as a member of the audience like the rest of us.

I will say this don’t forget Harrison Ford has worked on a JJ/Bad Robot produced movie before and got along great with JJ who was the producer on Morning Glory so JJ along with Kathleen Kennedy and a little nudging by George Might make getting Harrison definately back in a smaller capacity a bit easier.

751. BulletInTheFace – January 26, 2013
#721:
In any case, it doesn’t matter. There’s not a single person claiming he or she won’t see it who will actually follow through with that claim.
….

I promise I will not see it in the cinema. I’m sure others will not see it in the cinema, either. It’s a personal matter: not everyone will agree; that’s their choice. And if enough of us ‘follow through’ it will matter….

Further, why decide or announce this now? It’s got Trek in the news; but for all the bad reasons. It’s p*@@@d off a lot of fans…..not clever when the film is out in a couple of months. If it has Khan (which it does) it will likewise annoy other Trek fans….

I’m not unhappy about JJ’s directing SW7. I’m disappointed with the way he played the loyalty card when he made the statement that outright stated that he wouldn’t direct SW simply because he had loyalty to Trek.

Why would he say that?

And why is it somehow wrong to call him out on making that gratuitous statement?

What are we as fans? Mushrooms, simply to be kept in the Darkness and fed crap? We don’t get a voice about something we really like?

757 – You could take that as he thought he could only be involved with one or the other. But it looks like he’ll still be creatively involved with Trek, so he can do SW. I still think he’ll direct ST3 (13)

#753 – So now Abrams was “whining” when he made that statement? I guess you use a different definition of “whine” than I do–or than dictionaries do…

#757 – Get over it. Abrams hasn’t shown disloyalty to Trek by taking on Star Wars. He may have believed (as many fans do) that doing Wars would interfere with Trek, to which he felt loyalty. Based on the comments from Paramount (that Abrams will be involved in Trek3), it’s like that his concerns were resolved, allowing him to be loyal to Trek (through the trilogy to which Abrams, et al. have claimed to want) while doing Star Wars.

Your closing paragraph is laughable and undeserving of comment. Fine, you feel all butt-hurt over Abrams’ statement. Life goes on.

New facts color interpretation. We now know that JJ Abrams obviously and passionately DID want to be involved when he said the words “…out of loyalty to STAR TREK…I wouldn’t even want to be involved…” thus it can now be seen as a lament.

@739. I can understand it’s weird in the context that you are used to him having his roles in the project. Sitting out here in the suburbs of Southern California, though, having another major franchise under the Bad Robot umbrella seems like a win-win for everyone. The future of Trek, like any other project in the barn, hinges on the success of the next movie, it seems to me that from there, the possibilities are endless. Keep doing good work, and there will be more Trek….

#762 – “I’m prone to read stuff before I vent and if you did, too, you’d understand that I’m royally pissed that he made the statement that he did.”
****
Um, yeah, Hat, that’s why I told you to get over it. You are “royally pissed” about this, and that’s really sad. I read what you wrote, which is why I replied as I did, so drop the condescension.

As I said, you’re butt-hurt over the statement Abrams made–sorry, “royally pissed.” So frakkin’ what? GET OVER IT! He did no harm to you, to Trek, to fans, to the world–he made a statement about loyalty to Trek. You say “…he misled those of us who care about Trek…” Not really.

Think it through: He said he didn’t want to do Wars out of loyalty to Trek. Then, when the news broke that he’s directing Star Wars, we also learned that Paramount is reassuring fans that Abrams WILL BE INVOLVED in Trek-3. Thus, Abrams’ loyalty to Trek is protected, which allowed him to accept the Wars job.

If it turned out that doing Wars would have kept him from doing Trek-3, maybe he wouldn’t be doing Wars. But his statement about loyalty to Trek is intact, no matter how much you and the other hand-ringers want to twist it.

Enjoy your overreaction to a non-issue. Or grow up, get over it, and move on. But spare me the misguided condescension about reading skills: I clearly read and replied to EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, so if you have nothing new to say, don’t say anything else to me. I’ve already replied to your butt-hurtedness twice, because you simply restated what was already clear from reading your words.

#763 – Now you are showing YOUR lack of reading skills. I’ve already stated (on the previous thread where the Star Wars news came up) that I’d like to see Abrams NOT directing Trek-3. I’d like a director who has grown out of lens flares–clearly, not a comment I’d make if he was my hero.

Get a grip on reality, buddy. Your overreactions and misreadings are laughable.

I think this means ST:ID is the last Trek that Mr. Abrams directs. It took four years to get ST:ID after Trek 2009, and that was only making the relatively modest “Super 8″ in between. Episode VII will be a huge project in comparison. There’s just no way will we get an Abrams-directed Trek XIII in 2017. Abrams Trek has been good so far, but really, is it worth a five year wait for? No, in my opinion.

Unlike you, I actually READ what others say before replying, and I haven’t made any assumptions. You assumed Abrams is my “hero” among other things.

Lots of projection going on here, Hat. How about just taking your poor, royally pissed self away from the computer for a few minutes. Go for a stroll. Drink some tea. Smoke pot–whatever gets you to stop being such an uptight, overreacting, joke of a commenter.

Meanwhile, I’ll let you go ahead and have the last meaningless word on this. I hate thread hijackers, so I’ll save future comments for those deserving of response. (Hint for your reading-impaired brain: That means I won’t be responding to you anymore.)

I read Peter F Hamilton books, he is one of the best sci-fi writers out there. Someone in Hollywood should adapt The Night’s Dawn Trilogy & The Commonwealth series to movies series or at least miniseries.

Chasm City was such a beautifully written book that I couldn’t put it down until I finished reading it.

There are so many great sci-fi books that deserved to be adapted to the big screen.

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, PaulB. I’m simply not in the habit of reading your posts, and if you had said something in another thread that put something else you said in a different light, then perhaps you would have been well-advised to note it rather than assume that someone who has utterly no interest in your postings in general would have caught it.

In any event, why the pot reference? If smoking is your game, have at it. As for me, I stay sober.

768. Jack – January 26, 2013
Bob, any chance this will affect the final cut of Into Darkness? Will JJ be around to finish the thing? I don’t know JJ personally, but the Star Wars schedule seems pretty tight.

yeah, It is weird. I don’t know what this portends for any of our involvement.

I may be wrong but If I may say, you sound pretty disappointed by the news? If that’s the case, you are not alone, I’m feeling hugely deflated by this since seeing such excitement for Star Trek Into Darkness it seemed you were on a roll, now I don’t know what to think.

Thank you for replying to me. I sincerely hope JJ Abrams involvement in Star Wars and whatever the future holds for him does not effect yours and Alex Kurtzman’s involvement in Star Trek. You both have been the driving force behind making Star Trek relevant again. There are plenty of other amazing people out there who could work well with you both and the cast in creating a fitting end to the Star Trek story and the characters you guys have been so passionate about since 2009, and possibly even more amazing creative types (Ron D Moore, Brian Fuller) that could team up with you further into the future in creating Star Trek: The Next Generation alternate universe edition for TV. You guys have worked so hard to bring Star Trek to the masses as well as respecting canon and what has gone before as well as taking the time to engage with the fans on here and for everything you’ve done may i say a huge thank you.

I hope to see you and Alex Kurtzman back for Star Trek 3 and possibly more Trek beyond that.

I read Michael Piller’s book (the version that’s online) about Insurrection last night and he talked about how the film was at the mercy of focus groups, test audiences, Paramount (and the notes from Paramount were surprisingly perceptive — and, at the time, the movies were part of a franchise of two other TV shows), the budget and the stars right until opening night. No surprises there, really — but I was wondering whether it’s still quite that mired in committee until the last minute…

@780. That, and his script SUCKED. It seems like many of the people from the latter Star Trek series try to pass the blame for why the series went downhill onto others. The truth its, they all collectively let us down.

I take it that JJ Abrams thought that he could not do be involved with doing a Star Wars movie as well as do Star Trek, so declined the idea of directing Star Wars out of loyalty to Star Trek. Since then, he has found that he can do one without seriously affecting his ongoing involvement with the other. He can still remain *loyal* to the Star Trek franchise. Surely, such a huge thrill as well as possibly the ultimate challenge for him! Going where no man has gone before…!?

Pre-production for Episode VII needs to happen now, so that JJ Abrams has time (as well as some down time/family time) to direct a Star Wars movie, and then turn attention back to Star Trek.

As for his directing any movie, it seems that it has been a case by case/script by script basis when it comes to deciding if he will direct or not. That was evident even with STID, although he did appear to leave his Yes decision to what seemed like the very last minute. Maybe Paramount, Bob et al already knew what he planned. It was only made public at what seemed the last minute. Then again, Paramount can do what it likes, like making public only what it wants to make public, if and when it wants…

I have not seen People Like Us yet…:( but Alex Kurtzman is said to have done a fine job directing the film, especially since it was his directorial debut. Perhaps he might be interested in doing Star Trek, however it is sci-fi which is different from the PLU film genre, but still…

People are missing a big point here in comparing ST to SW. Star Wars hit the highest point the franchise in terms of the quality of the project 1980 with the Empire Strikes Back, and has never approached that level. Stat Trek, on the other hand, is still ascending.

I expect JJ to make some good SW movies that are better than the prequels. But I know one this for sure, the young Luke, Leia, and Solo aint ever coming back folks, nor is Alec Guiness, and Lawence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett are not positioning up the screenplay right now either.

The real SW many of us loved IS NEVER COMING BACK folks. Deal with it.

781. I agree. But it’s interesting to see why it sucked. Or at least to watch the lousiness evolve. And it’s interesting how (according to Piller) the actors, Berman snd Paramount didn’t want to see all the things that posters here say define Trek. They wanted an action/adventure movie. Everybody, including Stewart, was arguing against things like an emotional arc for Picard, an arc for Data, political intrigue, an examination of morals, and the lack of a scenery-chewing villain — they wanted a light, fun, inconsequential adventure with a very bad bad-guy (Stewart praised Soran), lots of joked and lots of space battles. Piller still gets blamed, and yes, he wrote the boob joke — and he’s dead. Interesting to see that he says about some of the biggest problems — like the Ba’ku being cast as a bunch of white guys, that he says he had nothing to do with and was disappointed in. Frakes still blames Piller for the nearly all-white Ba’ku.

Whatever. He said, she said — but it was interesting how they were all arguing against the stuff that everybody here says is essential to Trek.

Michael Bay:
Said that he not really cares about Star Trek. Thank god.

Well, Bay didn’t really care for Transformers either when Spielberg originally approached him (though now it can be argued that he possibly knows more about Transformers than most of his internet detractors who claim they are “hard core Transformers fans”. Seriously.)

Bay eventually delivered three financially successful movies, the last of which made in just over a month (adjusted for inflation) more money than The Dark Knight did during it’s entire run (including the Oscars re-release)*. Billions of dollars in 6 years. So, while Bay’s style and temperament would definitely not fit Trek and so such a match would be extremely unlikely, I wouldn’t discount any studio pursuing a director that they think can deliver them mega bucks in the box office, which is really all that matters for summer popcorn blockbusters.

*On an odd side note, Christopher Nolan’s cinematographer Wally Pfister has claimed in an interview that Nolan is a big fan of Bay’s work.

I know that JJ Abrams will do a great job with his SW movie(s). I still think highly of him as a skilled director.

I’m sure I’m gonna be blown away by STID, which I will of course see on the first day of release. I’m not one of those who is so annoyed by the apparently now-dubious provenance of Abrams’ “loyalty” comment that I will sacrifice my enjoyment of Trek. Hell, for all I care, Abrams could be booked for Murder One by Sgt. Joe Friday and I’d still see it. Yes, I’m that much of a fan of the franchise.

What will Abrams do with SW that Lucas, et al., were never able to do?

Two words: Lens flares.

;-)

Seriously, though — the last SW movie, (ROTS), seemed quite fakey to me. It all seemed to occur in a very sterile environment, lacking the comparatively “cinema verite” style that the first Star Wars movie had.

The last three SW movies, if seen side-by-side with Episode IV, stagey and mannered.

Disappointed is not exact;y the right word. We have been a great band over here, so it’s more bitter sweet when the band may to break up to do other things, simply because we’ve had so much fun. But doing other things is natural and healthy.

I think Star Trek will continue to grow beautifully, with or without us because there are so many people who love this franchise and have great stories to tell.

And to see my friend JJ achieve an impossible dream (cue music) brings genuine joy. He is one of the true good guys in the world.

“People are missing a big point here in comparing ST to SW. Star Wars hit the highest point the franchise in terms of the quality of the project 1980 with the Empire Strikes Back, and has never approached that level. Stat Trek, on the other hand, is still ascending.”

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think “still ascending” is a bit optimistic, assuming you meant it was still ascending during the dying days of CAPTAIN ARCHER VERSUS THE LITERAL SPACE NAZIS.

I would say the last high point of Star Trek prior to Trek 2009 was Deep Space Nine. It went downhill after that show ended. New Star Trek was the franchise crawling out of an abyss and becoming relevant again.

(This is not directed at you MJ :-) ) I’ve always thought that no matter what one might think of the new franchise that Abrams, Bob, Alex & co have created (and I have quite a few criticisms about Trek 2009’s lack of philosophical and moral debates common in Trek), making Star Trek *relevant* and noteworthy again is quite an achievement.

Long time reader of the site, first time poster.
I just had to finally say something because I feel it really drags these comment sections down.

MJ can you possibly tone down the nasty and meaness of your responses to people. GEESH!
You’re posts are always so negative, rude and condescending to those who do not see eye to eye with you

499. MJ – January 24, 2013
@493. The real secret is that you are a f@$ing moron.

779. MJ – January 26, 2013
@668 “I miss the days ofRon Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr et all at times when I see the writers of Trek today who sacrifice story for spectacle.”

Oh my goodness, those were days or boredom on Trek, and they were part of the problem that nearly drove Trek into the ground.

781. MJ – January 26, 2013
@780. That, and his script SUCKED. It seems like many of the people from the latter Star Trek series try to pass the blame for why the series went downhill onto others. The truth its, they all collectively let us down.

ANd then you have posts like this where your just being nasty and rude to be nasty and rude. seriously dude there are almost 800 posts in this thread if you think a person has read everyone of them before commenting on the main story then I do not know what to say. most people especially when they are excited to talk about something do not neccesarily have time to scan each and every little post. and his post was not harmful at all, I have noticed on this thread alone you have been rude and nasty to atleast 4 or 5 people who have posted a link to a story about the confirmation.

Now if Anthony P the sites operator has made you some sort of honorary moderator (which is unlikely seeing how he has told you a number of times not to be rude and attack other posters in various threads) then that is one thing. Perhaps Anthony can clarify if you are a official/unofficial Trekmovie moderator. Till then maybe you can be a little nicer with people who you do not agree with.

Sorry everyone for that rant I just had to say it, and the last I will say on the matter.
569. MJ – January 25, 2013
@567. Dude, I just posted that entire article here???

Great outlook to have on the franchise, Bob. JJ is lucky to have you on board- I’m sure he is aware of that fact. Damon and Alex are also very talented. Anyway it goes, best wishes to all of you in your endeavors, and we’ll be there to support all of you.

How cool is it to get to work on both franchises?!! JJ is certainly a lucky guy- (deservedly so)

At any rate, I know I’m looking forward to what’s next for both Star Trek and Star Wars! :D

“How ironic though that they made it relevant by making it pretty much irrelevant. Irony indeed.”

I would prefer my favourite franchises exist successfully in some reasonable, recognisable, enjoyable* form than dwell in obscurity because they wouldn’t be able to remake it exactly to how *I* remembered it being.

This is also good advice for all of those mindlessly angry people complaining about the live-action Transformers movies.

Bob Orci – “We have been a great band over here, so it’s more bitter sweet when the band may to break up to do other things,”

Do you really think that might happen just because JJ decides to direct one Star Wars movie? Gosh, I hope not…:(

#791 – “I have quite a few criticisms about Trek 2009′s lack of philosophical and moral debates common in Trek”

I can’t agree at all. You only need to see the debate about characters and events of Star Trek over the last four years on this site and others, to see that what you say is simply not true. I am not going into them here. I think more than enough has been said already.

I suspect that we’ll be for a similar ride once STID is released. The idea/implications of the Prime Directive, briefly mentioned in the STID trailer and preview, has already received discussion on this site.

I think that the writers of the comics were just having fun with the lens flares. JJ Abrams does have fun doing them as well. There were too many in Star Trek, especially on the bridge, and JJ has admitted that he did go a bit far. Hopefully, he will have toned it back a bit with STID, but no lens flare in an Abrams would not be “cricket” and I would feel a bit cheated…:)

I’m half-kidding about the lens flares. I don’t mind them. I think JJ is a brilliant director, even though I am not a happy camper about the “loyalty” statement. But, you know, water under the bridge and all that.

So, what about the future? Will JJ actually be able to juggle ST and SW over the course of a few years? I sorta doubt it. But thinking about this makes me mad/sad, so I won’t.

I prefer now to focus my attention on what will happen with ST now that JJ has achieved his professional life’s dream, which is to helm SW, apparently. I just hope that ST doesn’t get the red-headed stepchild treatment.

I’m glad Bob thinks so highly of JJ. I like that.

(Disclaimers:

1 No offense meant to red-headed children.

2. No red-headed children were injured or mistreated in the writing of this post.)

Now I hope they don’t have the sequel end in a cliffhanger. Unless Paramount really positions Trek to take on Wars. If they don’t then maybe Trek could take a break again to find find a new director and team to take over and reboot Trek again in a few years. Unless they hand it over to Orci and Kurtzman?

Yeah, I usually avoid Star Trek arguments. I mainly basked in the glow of the very notion that people who normally wouldn’t have any interest in Trek actually went to see and enjoyed the 2009 movie.

Btw, boborci, I trust you will deliver on a request I made of you years ago on the Transformers movie forum? Namely, Scotty would be deluded to the point of not believing that the Enterprise’s engines are capable of the task for which they were designed and, indeed, could explode at any moment. *crosses arms*

#799: Jack, I liked the lens flares a lot. I thought they worked well for creating a feeling of wonder. Sort of like how Steven Spielberg would always have “the light off screen” to suggest something amazing was going on out there.

I would assume Bob is referring to the fact that Star Wars already has a writer (and several producers) so he probably wouldn’t be involved. And honestly, I think this means JJ will likely not direct Star Trek 3.

Trek ’09’s on TV right now — I’m always surprised that it’s better than I remember. And I like the movie, a lot. But the flaws we dwell on here seem a lot more minor when watching it and seeing how well everything works. And visually it’s fantastic.

Actually, I take back my previous comment, it was rather ignorant. Although I wish JJ would have stuck with trek exclusively for at most 3 movies, there is no one better to direct the new Star Wars movie, it’s going to be damn exciting. It’s also the first time a Star Trek director and a Star Wars director were one in the same. That in itself is pretty damn awesome.

Notice I’m not complaining about the lack of new news stories lately. That’s because Anthony’s site makes up in quality what the other sites have in quantity.

Believe it or not, I’ve been registered with TrekWeb since the early 2000’s, and yet I rarely check it. I don’t believe I’ve checked it for several months, perhaps up to a year.

TrekMovie is where it’s at, as they say.

For the first time in years, however, I feel a bit insecure about Trek’s future, nevertheless. Those of you who’ve read some of my posts from time to time know that I’ve been in on some of the goings-on locally to the production; I posted some photographs when ST2009 was filming, for example. Hard to believe that was about five years ago.

I get sort of tired of the mind games played by some of patrons here, but I’m not really one to get involved in the petty disputes. They come and go, and I rarely care one way or another if they continue to post garbage or not. Sometimes I get riled; most often, I don’t.

Nothing lasts forever, however. If Trek goes downhill again in popularity, in a larger sense, I can live with it.

Rose , I agree abbout JJ directing one Trek film.
That is all we know right now .
One way or another, it will all work out
and I refuse to believe that Paramount just found out about this a few days ago .
i am sure thay have known for awhile .
JJ is either going to bejust a producer or produce and direct the next Trek.
It will be fine .

No I think they are stuck in a 3 movie deal, I think the Writers will stay on for one more movie, I think that it is what Paramount wants and with Star wars back Paramount may want more trek movies not less.

If Disney is going to release Star Wars with spin off movies also being produced along with the main franchise. Star Trek could have more than one incarnation. If Paramount wants to you may even get the Pike movie and some form of TV show (like clone wars animated) along with Star Trek or a kind of Star Trek chronicles movie that allow for stories that can be placed in any part or time of the Star Trek universe. Like Star Trek Klingon Empire, Star Trek The Romulan wars or Star Trek Take your pick of topic. If the franchises are going to compete directly with each other it could open Star Trek up to movies that don’t involve the Kirk, Spock, etc.that could prove to be just as successful and increase the fan base. All that is needed is a team with long term commitment and understanding of Star Trek’s potential as a franchise and story telling tool. I think those people already exist and have been involved with ST in the past and the present.

Bob, Trek 09 was terrific — even though, as fans, we nitpick to oblivion. Most of the nitpicks aren’t legitimate criticism as much as thy are gut reactions to change. People complain about awesome things like the superfast turbolift — but i don’t think any of the changes took away from the heart of Trek. And the movie got that absolutely right.

Well thank you for your thoughts Mr Bob Orci Sir….thanx also for fringe…I think some are feeling a bit betrayed because they have all gotten used to JJ being star treks savior…guess we can share him and he can be Star Wars Savior also hahah….

I think his earlier statement that he didnt want to do wars out of respect to the star trek franchise also made this a shock for some…..

Best of luck to All concerned and please let us know BOB when you get details as to what will happen in the future….as others have said we dont want to lose you as a poster here we respect and enjoy hearing from you….

Bob remember during release of Trek 09 I told you the story of my niece who hated star trek but because her hubby wanted to go went and enjoyed trek 09 so much she couldnt go to the bathroom for the whole movie because she didnt want to miss anything…Can I tell her that Star Trek ID will be similarly exciting to her?? I hope so…

Hey DISNEY may as well buy Star Trek as well….then they can own everything in the known universe….sheesh….
Disney is playing MONOPOLY with all our franchises and appears to have the Park Place and Boardwalk properties all locked up…for good or bad…we will see….

I am a little bit surprised that so many people are disppointed that he makes the new Star Wars film.
I mean, it is not as if Abrams is leaving Star Trek to produce a romantic-comedy or something. He’s doing Star Wars!! He’ll resurrect it like he did itwith Star Trek.
Yeah, i know this is a Trek-Forum but, c,mon 99% of you have to be Star Wars- fans as well. ( i always thought that those stupid Star Wars vs Trek disputes were ridicolous anyway).

And Star Wars definitely needs JJ. Star Trek seems to be stabilised again, but Star Wars is still dead after the the recent desastrous Lucas-years. Well not financially of course, but the soul of Star Wars is dead.
Trek at the moment does not need JJ anymore, he resurrected already a dead patient, and now he has to move on to the next one.

For me, it would be a great nerd trifecta if JJ did Star Trek, Star Wars, and also started doing more Indiana Jones movies.

My idea would be that IJ would be like the James Bond movies – once an actor IE Harrison Ford is too old, another younger actor could take the role, keep the action set in the 30’s and 40’s and keep making em.

Sorry off topic but I love IJ and I’d hate to see those movies end because Harrison Ford is an octogenarian. JJ would be a great director for IJ

This is such crap, but I’m not surprised. He had to get his hands on Star Trek and make it more like Star Wars because apparently more explosions and less story makes for a good movie. I mean, he basically ripped off Luke in episode IV with Kirk in the last movie.

I love Star Wars. But I love Star Trek a little more. What JJ has done to the franchise is horrible. It’s good for all the money makers, but not for the idea and vision that Star Trek is. And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are. You’ve forgotten what Star Trek is all about. It’s not about movies or grand sagas, they’re about the people and the hope for humanity to aspire to something greater than what we are. Not, “stop the mean bad guy from destroying Earth, but not Vulcan”.

I hate these new movies and I hate JJ and anyone else associated with making them, as well. I wish you’d ruin Star Wars too to make it even, but you’re a Star Wars fan JJ, so I doubt you’ll do that. Thanks a lot.

From Zachary Handlen’s review of Insurrection — and I think it’s appropriate to the Trek movie discussion. Keep in mind that he’s talking about TNG, not TOS:

“The Ba’ku’s precious privacy is a lost cause from the moment anyone leaves their planet alive, but no one acknowledges this. The ending is resoundingly triumphant, and that, ultimately, is why this movie doesn’t work, and why all the TNG movies fail to varying degrees: they have no interest in being smart. TNG, at its best, was a smart show. It told complicated stories about heroes who had to make difficult choices, and it found the drama in recognizing that good men (and women) face no win situations every day. These are qualities that can be difficult to translate from the small screen to the large, and I recognize that, but I would’ve infinitely preferred a movie that at least tried for complexity and failed, to the generic Mad-Lib actioners we got. The reason why the TNG movies don’t work is that none of them are representative of the show they’re trying to adapt. Instead, we get Picard, Data, Riker, Geordi, Beverly, Worf, and Troi shoe-horned into TOS style movies, full of broad plots, attempts at crowd-pleasing that offer little respect or understanding of the characters, and the same tedious arc again and again. All four TNG movies end with Picard physically fighting a bad guy. You can’t even say the same for the TOS films (the greatest of which doesn’t ever have the hero and the villain in the same room).”

Dude be open-minded. When TNG aired, the TOS-fans said that TNG was no real Star Trek. When DS9 aired they all said, its not real Star Trek. The same with Voyager and Enterprise, now with Abrams.
Wrong. This is all still Star Trek. The franchise is just renewing itself to be still fresh and watchable. Otherwise Trek would have died decades ago.

If JJ does step down to a producer role on Star Trek 3, I would love to see Brad Bird step in. He’s already part of ‘the family’, so-to-speak, and definitely knows how to handle a retro scifi property well.

The story here is that Paramount confirmed Bad a robot for Star Trek 3 and Mission: Impossible 5. With JJ attached to Star Wars, will we see either of these movies before hell freezes over? There seems to be no momentum on M:I right now.

Paramount needs to announce deals an commit to release dates for M:I an Star Trek 3.

I like Star Wars fine and wish JJ the best, but I don’t want to wait until 2017 for Star Trek 3.

Paramount needs to treat this like a business and make commitments like Disney/marvel, Disney/Pixar and Disney/Star Wars.

Watching Trek 09: Nero says “The life I will deprive you of just like I did your father” — okay, so how does he know he killed Kirk’s father?

This actually makes the trailer stuff resonate — Kirk not only became a captain in days, but he heard various people tell him that this was his destiny, or at least was in that other timeline. It would be hard not to get a big head… And Pine’s Kirk certainly has a big head.

I wasn’t bummed out at first, but the more I think about it the more I feel like Star Trek came home and found her husband sleeping with another woman called Star Wars.

Feels like JJ’s best attention will now be going somewhere else. I’m happy for him if Star Wars is what he really wants, but as primarily a Star Trek fan I still lament that Star Trek doesn’t seem to be any bigshot director’s favorite girl.

God thats miffy, i mean he already directed 2 films, and he’ll very likely produce the third one as well. How much dedication does he still has to prove? As i already said until now there was no director that made more than two Trek-films, so it’s not like as if Abrams was a fast dropout.

And there are many big-name directors who probably would want to follow.
Brian Singer, Seth McFarlane, only time will tell.
And as i said in a earlier post, Star Wars at the moment needs also to be resurrected, Trek already is. Abrams indeed is needed elsewhere.

As much as Christopher Nolan would be nice, but only if he feels it, which is why I said exactly what I did.

I actually believe that Star Trek is good enough to deserve somebody’s full attention for a three movie deal.

And nobody knows how this will play out. Maybe he will direct #3. But with Star Wars competing for his time and attention it now seems more possible that his involvement with Star Trek will shrink. And that is disappointing to reflect on.

Nothing against Abrams…
but not looking forward to seeing that stupid “Bad Robot” animation, followed by “A long time ago…” and that magnificent Star Wars logo swooping in.
And crossing my fingers that Michael Giacchino can do a decent John WIlliams soundalike score.

JJ Abrams dividing his time between 2 franchises may not be good in the long run. Hopefully STITD will repeat the success of ST2009. And SW can have his full attention, Star Wars needs it. Why not just be happy for the guy. He has made a lot of peoples childhood favorite Star Trek relevent to the audience again. Be happy with that and let JJ have his childhood dream with Star Wars

It’s safe to assume that Star Trek 2009, and STID, will have been enough exposure that the franchise can, and should continue without him. To me, there would be a conflict of interest, and the danger of making Star Wars more ‘Trek’ like, and Star Trek more like ‘Star Wars’ like. He’s done a great job, but I believe there should be another prominent director hired to complete the 3 film deal, and help usher the franchise back to it’s original domain- Television.

“And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are. You’ve forgotten what Star Trek is all about. It’s not about movies or grand sagas, they’re about the people and the hope for humanity to aspire to something greater than what we are. Not, “stop the mean bad guy from destroying Earth, but not Vulcan”.”

Hey pal, I think you’ve crossed the line. It’s all fine and good to dislike a new incarnation of some franchise or other that you are a fan of, but to say that you don’t consider fellow fans to be fans if they like what you don’t like? That is not cool dude.

I don’t know what print of Trek 09 you watched, but they tried to save Vulcan but didn’t know what the hell was going on at the time. When the time came to save Earth, they came armed with knowledge, Scotty’s Magical Transporter and a plan.

“Nothing against Abrams…
but not looking forward to seeing that stupid “Bad Robot” animation, followed by “A long time ago…” and that magnificent Star Wars logo swooping in.”

I would be more disappointed in the fact you won’t see the 20th Century Fox logo and music accompanying the Lucasfilm logo anymore. It just feels *right* and an essential part of the opening titles of a Star Wars film.

This is about J.J Abrams wanting to cement his legacy as one of the all-time greatest and prolific directors/producers in modern day Hollywood history as much as it is fulfilling a life-long dream.

He’s not going to do that by directing “Star Trek” films, no matter how great they are. “Star Trek” isn’t nearly the global superbrand that “Star Wars” is.

No, it will only be done by conquering the proverbial “Hollywood Mt. Everest”, i.e, making the next “Star Wars” trilogy something truly special which evokes the classic epicness of the originals, yet brings something new to the table WITHOUT alienating fans while bringing in new ones.

@ 849. F4
Good question. WIll Disney replace 20th century Fox? Or will it be a joint-production?
Does anybody know?
It would be indeed strange if there is no 20th century fanfare at the beginning of a Star Wars film.

Still a bunch of JJ hate here, I see. It’s all pretty silly, claiming Abrams killed Star Trek when Trek died after DS9. Voyager and Enterprise were merely its long long death throes. Especially Voyager. It was painful watching that corpse flop around for seven seasons.

Even IF Abrams’ Trek was a travesty (which I don’t believe), better it be two hours instead of seven seasons. Frankly though, I’d rather have Trek on TV, but if they insist on making movies, I’d like to see them have different directors and interpretations like Batman. Hell, let Tarantino do one. I’d love to hear Spock say motherf@%$er.

I hope Paramount change their mind and get completely rid of Abrams. He will do Star Wars and Mission: Impossible and who knows what other projects. The 4 year hiatus between 2009 and 2013 was already way too long. I rather have the 3rd Star Trek movie with a new director in THIS DECADE. If they wait until Abrams isn’t busy with something he likes more than Star Trek, the Star Trek actors will be old and grey by then. I want a director for Star Trek, for whom Star Trek is his clear priority and not an afterthought for the time, he has from his point of view nothing better to do.

Say, speaking of the Bad Robot logo, when are we ever going to learn the backstory behind the eponymous automaton? What, we’re supposed to believe that one day the camera just happened to be around to capture footage of the robot running around in a field? We need facts! We need details!

4- while Trek needs to be updated to keep it fresh with modern audiences it must not lose what it is about or it ideals or it is Star Trek in name only.

DS9 was a great show and so is BSG but if the humans acted more like the humans in BSG then it would def not be Trek to me. You can challenge the vision of Trek, which is what DS9 did, but you cannot abandon it.

You a legend in your own mind. I’ve never heard of you, and yet you show up with personal email attacks on someone who posts here regularly, and then you give us this nonsense about being some kind of sci-fi internet celebrity.

What hubris; what ego! And no, Brea Tonnika, I have never heard of you, and I don’t think its too bold that say that practically no one else here has ever heard of you either.

Sorry, Brea Tonnika, you are not famous, but now you are infamous for making a complete ass out of yourself here.

I do think people need to calm down. I’m sure there have always been plans in case something like this happened. There will be a third film. A new director doesn’t mean the plans for the Trilogy will go away. Remember, a major part of that is with the writers….

I wouldn’t go that far to call JJ a traitor or liar, but I expect some more information on what changed his mind!
I never liked Star Wars because I find it quite boring to tell mostly the same story six times again and again.
But we will see with what the writer comes up.
I am also curious about what will happen with the next trek.

833. JP Saylor: ‘And if people like these new movies, I don’t consider them Star Trek fans. I don’t care who you are… I hate these new movies and I hate JJ and anyone else associated with making them, as well. I wish you’d ruin Star Wars too to make it even, but you’re a Star Wars fan JJ, so I doubt you’ll do that. Thanks a lot.’

I grew up watching the original Star Trek. It was my favourite TV show throughout the 80s until Twin Peaks came along. But Star Trek was a fun sci-fi action show, with a sense of humour, characters who would fight over their ideas, romantic interludes harking back to the old Flash Gordon serials. It was the whole package. And after Gene Roddenberry’s chilly, dehumanised ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ (such a pompous title for such a pompous film!) the subsequent trilogy was a lot of fun.

Then Gene Roddenberry brought TNG to television and ruined everything for me. I hated TNG’s self-righteousness, the lack of action, the boring stereotypical 1980s characters and the Soviet Federation of Planets, travelling through space, its citizens so convinced of their moral rectitude, where the orignal show was always questioning.

Worse still were the new fans and organised fandom who embraced TNG as some kind of atheistic religion and often poured scorn on the orignal Star Trek, while deifying Roddenberry. So I stepped away from Star Trek. After TNG, I watched the odd episode, but it wasn’t for me.

I didn’t go back to Star Trek until JJ Abrams’ film was announced. And, given his first film is a set-the-scene film, it captures a lot of that pizzaz of what made the original show great.

I simply feel, if these new Star Treks upset you that much, that you should step away. I hate the new Doctor Who, but don’t go on Who forums bitching about it. Life’s too short to get this upset about a movie series, believe me. Take care. :)

this might be a silly question/thought but do you think theres anyway JJs appointment as director of SW Episode VII could help STID between now and its release? i dont just mean as curiosity factor for all us geeks who trawl the movie news on the net every day. but in terms of marketing/publicity etc….i realize you cant put on the posters and trailers from ‘the director of Star Wars VII’ but there might be some way of enticing people (esp overseas) who wouldnt normally go see a Trek movie (but who would go see star wars) to go and check out ‘Into Darkness’ as it’s THE Sci Fi space film before the new Star Wars. Like a ‘come and see Star Trek and see whats in store for Star Wars’ type thing…

i dunno what though …other than the news spreading that the director of Star Trek is doing Wars next…

What if Star Trek were put up for sale? The way the rights of Star Trek is held right now is pretty crappy. Both Paramount and CBS are looking for investment right now – CBS to carry further production with the network, Paramount with investing in their new animation division. Les Moonves is still in charge of CBS and still not a fan of Star Trek. Who better to (ironically) buy it than Disney and fold it into LucasFilm? A deal for Star Trek certainly has the possibility of being sold at a value similar to LucasFilm itself.

I know, the idea that LucasFilm would own all the rights to Star Trek might be heresy at best. But, considering that all rights would be under one company instead of two, it would be better than Star Trek’s current situation.

Ideally I would like to see Abrams finish what he began and round out Star Trek by producing and directing a third Star Trek movie with the Supreme Court and the cast and crew responsible for Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness.

At the moment Im sure Abrams is hard at work doing Into Darkness, what happens next will depend on the success of Star Trek Into Darkness.

As I see it Abrams will be finished doing Star Wars Episode 7 by mid 2015. I’m sure that Paramount would have wanted a movie out in 2016 for the franchises 50th however it is possible to have a third Abrams directed movie out by 2017, whilst Star Wars is a bigger gig, this isn’t much different from Abrams wanting to do Super 8 before doing Trek. Had Abrams not taken the Star Wars gig I doubt he would have wanted to go from Into Darkness straight into doing a third movie for a release in 2016, either way there would have been and will be a substantial break between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third movie as has been between Star Trek 2009 and the sequel. so with that its possible to think that he wouldn’t want to do another Star Wars strait after his first one either which would potentially give him the opportunity to don his Starfleet uniform one last time to direct. the question will be whether or not he wants to go from Trek to Wars back to Trek again. if he does then theres no reason to think if the script is right and he’s enthusiastic about it that he wouldn’t want to direct, after all we know that the cast and the crew all really respect and admire Abrams and that the respect is mutual, Abrams I’m sure loves working with the cast and crew of Trek, some of which won’t be involved in Star Wars.

Its really a separate issue but the developments with JJ Abrams joining Star Wars have really brought this into question and that is where does Star Trek go now. The 50th anniversary should be a massive chance to present the next chapter in Star Trek’s future as a brand with longevity. Abrams was never going to remain doing Star Trek for the rest of his life so it is vital that the studios don’t rest on their laurels anymore waiting for Abrams. Let 2015 be the year Star Wars comes back and then let 2016 be the year Star Trek launches its next chapter, what that may be and who that may involve is up to the powers that be but in my opinion the following should happen:

– CBS and Paramount announce that a new Star Trek TV series will be launched. Created by a new team and based within the alternate timeline and on the adventures of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

– CBS and Paramount launch a brand new animated series to be aired on Nickelodeon based upon the continuing missions of Captain James T. Kirk and the crew of the USS Enterprise…

– On the 50th anniversary of Star Trek it is announced that JJ Abrams will produce and direct the third and his final Star Trek motion picture for a release in 2017 that brings with it the epic conclusion to the JJ Abrams Star Trek trilogy.

Whether or not Bad Robot continues to produce Star Trek incarnations remains to be seen with or without Abrams but personally I would hope that Bad Robot continues to work with Paramount Pictures and CBS to develop Star Trek for future generations.

I think what should happen is for Paramount Pictures to obtain the entire rights to Star Trek, currently split between Paramount and CBS. Then what Paramount should do is possibly buy Bad Robot and have Star Trek produced by Bad Robot. Whether that would include JJ Abrams who knows. You could end up with Disney buying Bad Robot when their contract with Paramount expires in 2015.

If it came down to some form of bidding war between paramount and Disney for bad robot it is pretty clear that Disney would win it. Disney is far bigger than paramount and has a lot more money, also Bad Robot seem to have chose Star Wars in future over Star Trek. Best that trek move on from the Abrams era and get someone else to take the reigns. Paramount should let bad robot & Abrams buy themselves out of whatever contract they have with paramount and then they can concentrate on Star Wars.

“I still do not care for the universe George Lucas created.
But, I might be tempted to see what Mr. Abrams’ take on it would be.

That is what I could be curious about.”
_______

…Especially insofar as I agree that “Whoever directs the next SW film will have to do it wearing Disney shackles. Disney makes movies within prescribed parameters for a prescribed audience, i.e. children and families. That’s been part and parcel of their brand for 80+ years and they ain’t straying from it now….”

(That was a fellow poster’s opinion, a while back.)

….Thus, I really hope Jeffrey Jacob Abrams will be able to feel happy, creatively speaking etc…, with this new endeavour.

Watching a comedy special last night made me think of this thread. Those with such nerd rage against this announcement I would liken, as the comic suggested, that these people are beyond nerds – they’re dweebs. The kind that are born of very old parents and as the saying goes – the fresher the mayo the better the sandwich – these anti-JJ dweebs are “slightly expired”. They hide from the light, swallow in weird places in sentences, sweat a lot and make weird nasal noises.

Think Napoleon Dynamite and you have a good idea of what I’m talking about.

The one constant of the Star Wars films is that whoever directs them — it doesn’t really matter because like episodes of a TV series, the look and feel doesn’t change much — aside from advancements in visual effects technology.

The thing that makes me upset that it upstages the next film. Instead of people talking about Star Trek, they will be talking about JJ’s involvement in Star Wars.
My excitement for the movie has gone down. They didn’t finish what they started.

I do find it slightly strange that Abrams would want to do Star Wars beyond being a long term fan.

Where as Paramount gave JJ Abrams the freedom to do with Star Trek what he felt was right, with Star Wars he is just one cog in a very large wheel so I’m a bit baffled as to why he’d want to seemingly take a step back In his career by just padding out Lucas’ laundry list of things he wants to see in Star Wars 7.

As for fans unhappy about this, I don’t think calling them names is really all that fair. I’ve likened it to a football fan (soccer) having their best player or manager move to their rivals.

I think at this point you guys could do something to offset the pessimism and anger that this news caused among trekkies and even some in the media, perhaps launching online the 9 mins, or a big promotion at Super Bowl, you know, the important thing is that we must go back to talking about ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’!

People should do what they want and feel most strongly about (on non-moral matters, that is), so if that is what’s behind JJ’s sudden shift in opinion AFTER his declaration of loyalty, then that’s how it is, and everyone has to adjust.

But that doesn’t erase the sadness either. You also have to feel what you feel. Don’t LIE about it. And that’s how I feel.

If it turns out that JJ has time to do #3 (and we can’t rule that out yet), I’ll be happy, and my happiness will be a mirror image — an identical but OPPOSITE reflection — of what I feel right now.

For Star Trek, its rude and angering that he lied. It also means Trek will most likely get the backburner given the schedule for Star Wars release. Not to mention that’s what he did to Trek with every other one of his projects over the last couple years.

For Star Wars, a fanboy is taking over. I don’t think that’s good. That’s what ruined the prequels imo, too many fanboys in the production team.

@TerranGuy93 (898), I agree with you that JJ’s taking the SW gig is disappointing. This is what I’ve been trying to convey — that his “loyalty” statement was gratuitous and just plain wrong. Again, I’m ready for him to do penance by doing a crossover short feature, because he’s the only person who has the means and influence to do it. A crossover movie production would benefit primarily Trek, since movie audiences — let’s be frank — still prefer SW.

There’ve been uses of Disney characters alongside non-Disney properties before. Mickey Mouse was present for a brief moment in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” — the first time, as I recall, that said Mr. Mouse and Bugs (“Property of Warner Bros.”) Bunny had ever shared a venue. So crossovers of this type, though not magnitude, would not be unprecedented.

And in literature, you have your Trek / X-Men crossover. (I’m referring to the Pocket Books, I think, publication.)

I’m still irritated at JJ for his loyalty statement. How unnecessary! How unfeeling! (To JJ: Seriously, dude, why’d you do it, man? Why? The statement, not the gig. I know you had to do the gig.)

So, anyway.

Life goes on.

Still kinda bitter, though.

P.S.: Still wanna know why the Bad Robot was running around in a field.

Lucas having billions didn’t directly ruin anything. But that made him uber rich and uber powerful. When you hit that stage you think you are bullet proof (obviously you were doing something right) so you end up being surrounded by people that are paid to agree with your brilliant ideas.

The Star Wars Prequels were all George from top to bottom. If the fault lays with anyone then it lays with Lucas who wrote and directed them all, plus he oversaw virtually every aspect of production.

If anything more people should seek out The Phantom Edit and at the very least listen to the editors commentary and you can see all of mistakes pointed out right before you, ones that are just common sense.

I mean in the commentary for Episode II Lucas himself says that the only reason there is a long Obi-Wan/Jango fight scene is because they wanted to “show off” the Jango CGI. It didn’t further the story and it made a Jedi Master look like a fool because he couldn’t easily dispatch a dude with a few gadgets.

When the news first broke that SW was going into production again without George Lucas, the first thing that came to mind before I read anything else was that JJ Abrams was THE man for the job.

He is.

What hurts is that JJ publicly passed on the offer after it became known that it had been made to him, and he expressed loyalty to Trek as one of the reasons why.

If he had just accepted the offer I think we would have understood, and we would not now be feeling betrayal of that sense of confidence that JJ himself gave us.

And that part is his doing. It’s like he steered the ship away from the rocks, and we all went back to bed only to suddenly feel the ship hitting the rocks, and going up on deck to find JJ on shore disappearing over a hill.

To me it feels like there’s a bunch of us looking at each other with a WTF? expression.

I guess the “loyalty” thing is how JJ WANTED to be, but he didn’t have a heartfelt commitment to the principle.

I think Star Trek just needs a new start. First of all it needs people who are in charge to just love star trek and not have a 100 other projects going on. I love bad robot and most of their shows but they are never gonna be in it for the long haul, they have too many things going on. Also for some reason its hard for me to read comics or see the movies with the faces of the new actors, i have 10 grand set aside for the new stern pinball star trek machine (based on the alt timeline) that will probably come out in may or june. Now i dont know if i even want it. Kirks time has come and gone and now the same with picard. Certain actors can be recast, a kirk and picard are not them, shatner and stewart and even Nimoy are their characters. Star trek has to become a new series with a whole new cast and characters. It is not a movie franchise, its a tv show i feel if most people had a choice they would chose a tv show over a movie. A movie is a nice addition but the tv is where its at. Our star treks gone and its not coming back, star wars on the other hand this is the perfect time to make a new movie with the original actors, because u cannot recast luke or han. We have to let go and as much as i enjoyed 2009 trek its not the same and i rather start fresh with a new crew. sorry for the rant and jumbled message but i think we need to move on, because after the 2nd or 3rd movie where do we go, pine is not going to do a tv show and neither most of the actors, this is 2 or 3 and done and then what?

And from what I gathered about Bob’s statements upthread, “Star Trek Into Darkness” might be the final time the supreme court work together.

I know J.J Abrams is supposedly signed to direct/produce the third Trek film, but he may opt out because of the heavy “Star Wars” workload, or Paramount will decide to just re-start the Trek film franchise with an entirely new production and writing staff. Which would mean that Chris Pine and co. could very well be done after the sequel, which is a shame, as I really like the cast and was hoping for a trilogy.

I can understand why people are upset by this,
But nothing has happened yet .
There is no firm shooting schedule for the next Star Wars film.
I know people think JJi snt doing Trek3,
but right now, that is conjecture not fact .

Why we need to wait for Abrams to come back after finishing Star Wars to do the third Trek movie?

Paramount should start looking for new director right now. Otherwise we will wait 5 to 7 years to see a new Trek movie if they are going to wait for Abrams, what with his trademark of taking forever to make a single movie.

I’m happy that Abrams will make the new Star Wars movie. The guy is a brilliant director & I can’t wait to see what he will bring to Star Wars universe.

But STID is ironically the wild card in this whole euation
If it is successful ,Paramount will first attempt to move Heaven and Earth to get JJ back.
If that fails , they will sign him on as producer and plaster his name on on every TV spot trailer and poster and make the public THINK he is the director.
If JJ continues to make money for them,
Paramount will use him every way that they can so that he continues to do so .

Everyone is in it, well when it’s SW level, money of course.
There is nothing wrong with JJ wanting to make more.

But the old men at Paramount! Please dont be such losers. Bid JJ farewell on ST and find someone else. It is not true that there is not another director who could give us a “box office successful” ST film… If you dont take action it will likely to come out earliest 2017 and we’ll start seeing the crew in mid age crisis already…

Paramount! Get over JJ. Us fans are even happy to see him go.

I call to trekmovie.com! Why dont we open a petition to call Nolan to direct? How many signatures could we collect?
Let’s do this guys…

Except Redstone purposely cleaved the original Paramount in two so that he could set its top two antagonistic execs, Brad Gray and Les Moonves, at each others’ throats because he believed the “competition” would generate more profits. Make no mistake, Moonves might now head a division called CBS but he believes it to be the real Paramount of which he was wrongfully deprived of inheritting the movie mogul mantle he rightly deserves. Likewise, for Gray with entertainment tzar. Both want to restore the two pieces back together and dump the other guy.

887. Uberbot –
“The one constant of the Star Wars films is that whoever directs them — it doesn’t really matter because like episodes of a TV series, the look and feel doesn’t change much — aside from advancements in visual effects technology.”

Indeed. And no doubt JJ won’t change the look of the Star Wars universe, at least not radically. I’m guessing the look of his installment(s) will be a mixture of of the looks of the OT and the sequels. But I have to think he’ll want to put his own stamp on it and I wonder what that’ll look like, besides the occasional (?) lens flare.

I will try to give the frigid old Star Trek franchise a more “sensual and nudistic” approach if Paramount allows me… Wasnt the whole deal about making ST sexy again? You’ll be right in good hands.. Hmmm

There are a lot of gay stories that could take place on the Enterprise, and I would absolutely like to take up Roddenberry’s vision against discrimination in that sense… Anyways I always thought Bones was gay… Yummy!

#954 — Might be some lens flares but I saw some of those in Revenge of the Sith a couple of times. LOL!

I just don’t see JJ putting much of a stamp on it. I think he can direct actors better than Lucas can — that much is for sure. I doubt we’ll see the wooden acting of the prequel trilogy…and that’s a good thing.

However, if you go back and look at the original trilogy, I have to say I’d be hard pressed to find the directing style of Richard Marquand in Return of the Jedi for example…Empire and Return blended perfectly as far as direction goes and they were both directed by different directors.

But, with a series, that’s what you want…consistency. Some directors are ok with that but I could never see a director like David Lynch being ok with working within those constraints. Lucas alledgedly wanted Lynch to direct ROTJ…

#902: Lucas having billions made him completely out of touch with the fan base. He became the Emperor–he surrounded himself with yes-men who never had the balls to tell him many of his ideas were terrible. That’s why we ended up with the crappy SW prequels and the fourth Indy film–those who used to keep him in check were no longer part of the equation. His money and power so removed him from criticism that he become incompetent as a storyteller.

True, but that doesn’t change the reality that Sumner Redstone is still majority shareholder in both. And the way he divided up Star Trek (CBS owns the name, while Paramount owns all the distribution rights) means the two have to work together in order to keep the cash flowing.

Limitations can be a good thing, and George basically has none. He’s so wealthy now he can produce films entirely outside the studio system. And while that has benefits, it also means there’s no pushback on his wackier tendencies. The original trilogy had more creative involvement from outside sources because he wasn’t yet a proven moneymaker for the studio. Even Harrison Ford goaded him with his famous, ‘You may be able to write this shit George, but you sure can’t say it.’ I don’t think anyone on the prequel trilogy would have dared say that. In fact, the only person who did complain about the script publicly didn’t return for the sequels (Liam Neeson).

Sean, Stra Wars is about to thrive under JJ, it is hardly ruined ,
The only way Lucas getting billions from the original trilogy ruins the franchise is if the Prequels didnt make any money, but, they did.
About this ” Back Burner” business,
What Trek director has devoted 100% of their career to Trek after signing on?
It is an unreasonable expectation that the Supreme Court will only focus on Trek.

Ummm, That’s the problem right now. In ST forums people speaks a lot of Star Wars and only a bit of ST. That’s the problem right now with Abrams in Star trek: SW overshadows ST because right now Abrams is SW. and SW is colonizing ST via Abrams. SW is eating star trek space…

Paramount and CBS: you can’t permit this situation. In ST, the most important thing is ST. Abrams can’t be executive producer of ST and director-coproducer of SW at the same time because it is no good for Star Trek. Incompatibility.
Trekkers should be speaking about ST into the darkness, not about SW.

The marketing of STITD is ruined because of this stuff.
Sorry, It’s time to say good bye, Bad Robot.

Red dead first off thanks for slinging the insults at me, I see MJ’s pals are begining to circle the wagons.
secondly I never said i was famous on the internet or anywhere else I said bonus points if you could guess the origins of my screen name I posted my 1st and only comment on here as.

Brea is one of the 2 Cantina girls in A new Hope, I thought it was appropriate name to post under being a girl posting on a thread about star wars on a star trek website.

But no you have to be like MJ and sling insults and make implications that were never implied in the first case. I backed up my statements about MJ with his actual posts on this thread.

I am a long time reader here, but I don’t post on here just wanted to ask MJ to stop being mean. And now I go back to just reading comments on here unless you or MJ decide to insult me again.

Clean your act up guys its very sad to hide behind a computer monitor slinging insults and ruins the fun of reading the site.

905. I remember reading somewhere that thefirst Star Wars movies were really collaborative, and Lucas got a lot of input and guidance from various people over the years. He realized he wasn’t a great writer. He had friends and colleagues telling him what didn’twork. various people did uncredited rewrites. And by The Phantom Menace, there was nobody to tell him what to fix (either thT, or hedidn’t care).

974, but Brea, if you’ve been following here for long, you’d know that most of us demand JJ et al adhere to Trekian principals — but we don’tdo so ourselves… we squabble, name call, label, judge, presume, assume, condescend, belittle, jump to conclusions, appeal to dogma & tradition, reject innovation, ignore history, take credit for the work of the hundreds of people who madeTrek successful, dwell in an idealized past and often just make shit up. And we say JJ is the one who doesn’t get Trek.

The timing of this announcement, the fact that Roberto Orci himself did not seem to know what was going on ( which is the impression I had, at least ), those are the things I found intriging.

To this day, however, the only time I felt “betrayed”, so to speak, was around the year 2000, when I decided to give The Next Generation movies a chance and discovered that James Tiberius Kirk was no more.

JJ is direcvting the next Star Wars movie. Get over it already. Therepy sessions will be handled somewhere else for all the SW and ST fans suffering from Post/Pre JJ Stress Disorder or PJSD Syndrome. Grow up and leave the tears at the door.

I am looking forward to Star Trek Into Darkness and I was lucky to see the 9 minute Prolouge before the Hobbit in IMAX 3D. It was truly amazing and I find that the tone and content hit the spot. I agree with a Brazillian poster a while back that suggested that they should release the prologue online to help promote the movie now that The Hobbit is out of the Top 10 in the theatres. I await the Superbowl trailer next weekend and I hope Anthony and company will update us on these developments. I have two kids and they do not whine half as much as some folks on these threads. Lets us make our future brighter and go with a smile. LLAP!!

Folks, please check out this extremely suspicious series of folks, from two, plus “stunkill” and his already known alias, “Son of Jello:”

**************************
793. Brea Tonnika – January 26, 2013.
Long time reader of the site, first time poster. I just had to finally say something because I feel it really drags these comment sections down. MJ can you possibly tone down the nasty and meanness of your responses to people. GEESH! You’re posts are always so negative, rude and condescending to those who do not see eye to eye with you….(….and son on an so on an so on….)

870. stunkill – January 27, 2013
Brea Tonnika and Son of Jello, I agree 100%

#871. Roykirk – January 27, 2013
Son of Jello and Brea Tonnika, You are both completely right here. MJ is out of control. As a new person here it is really hard to get my point across with people like him here. I wish more people like you would post. Keep up the great work — you have my full support, Brea Tonnika! PS: Stunkill, well said, my friend. You are completely on target, as usual.
************************

Draw your own conclusions from this people, but this all looks like the work of one person to me — “Stunkill.” I mean seriously, this Brea Tonnika person is a “long time reader – first time post of this site,” who never posted about the sequel announcement, who never posted about the Khan debate, who never posted about the trailer or IMAX preview, but yet decided to post about MJ suggest folks read some earler posts?

I mean, come on, she/stunkill is getting “supposedly upset about MJ saying stuff like: “Dude, I just posted that entire article here???” ;”Does ANYONE here read previous posts???”; “Well thanks, Dave for the huge News Flash! Lois Lane you are not, dude. LOL ;-).” These are just some humorous quips…this is laughable. Like MJ is the only guy using a bit of humorous sarcasm here?

And let’s not forget what Brea Tonnica/stunkill told us as well:

“793. Brea Tonnika – January 26, 2013. Sorry everyone for that rant I just had to say it, and the last I will say on the matter.”

Then following this, she/stunkill posts multiple additional attacks against MJ, as well as condemn and shout down one person who tried to jump in to disagree with here on this. What a hypocrite — she/stunkill says ” last I will say on the matter,” and then continues with multiple negative attack emails. She/stunkill has been significantly more negative than MJ here, and is frankly ruining my enjoyment of this site today.

I really hope Singer never touches Trek. I really don’t like the guy’s stuff. He robbed Superman returns of any spark, and I know this is anathema, but I didn’t like his take on X-men all too much either (2 was good — but the gay=mutant stuff wasn’t too subtle). They felt like low-budget, made-in-Canada TV movies. Although his style fit more for X-men than it would for Trek. Being a fan isn’t always enough.

2015 – Star Wars VII: A New Dawn released – critices are divided. some love it some think it too referential to the original trilogy. only does a disappoiting $591m ww while Avengers 2 takes home $2b in the same month.

2016: Star Trek Revolutions released. directed by Brett Ratner – like SW7 reviews are fairly mixed. this time too much action at the expense of story, but amazingly does slightly better box office than Star Wars 7 – $660m ww. Another movie is commissioned despite the definitive end to the trilogy (timeline is restored:)

Even though a lot of the questions directed at Abrams now whilst promoting Star Trek Into Darkness will probably be Star Wars related, I don’t think Abrams would ever answer them.

Whist myself included this news makes me feel cold and deflated regarding Star Trek’s future, really I think these feelings will pass as we come to acknowledge that really these two franchises don’t share anything in common other than being set in space.

The one thing this may do in time, now the same person is at the moment doing both is actually work in favour of creating a noticeable difference between them both, Abrams may even come out and say just that, he took on Star Wars because when you get down to the specifics, Star Trek and Star Wars are totally different so I (Abrams) saw no conflict of interests even though there is this wrongly perceived notion that they are similar.

And there’s the reality here, these may be two huge franchises but they couldn’t be any more different. Whilst the new team behind Trek borrowed some lessons from Wars, Star Trek is totally different from Wars.

Yes there will be a lot of mainstream media outlets drawing comparisons and asking Abrams questions about both but the success of Star Trek Into Darkness will not be measured against the anticipation of a new Star Wars movie, it will be successful or unsuccessful on its own merits. In fact we may see more people now going to see Into Darkness because of Abrams deal to do Star Wars. Truth is these movies are not going up against each other and whilst Abrams is jumping over to Wars, that doesn’t really mean anything to Star Trek as a successful franchise in its own right with its own fans and its own stories to tell. the two have and can still co exist even if they share the same director/producer.

Sure the timing could have been better, ideally this news would have been best saved for after the release of Star Trek Into Darkness and yes it could have been handled better but when you think about it, Although this is a slap across the face for Trekkies, its superficial, Star Trek has been sucessfully restarted and if Abrams is commited to producing, perhaps directing as Paramount have stated a third Trek movie then things are playing out as they did after Star Trek in 2009. Trek was revived by a then fresh faced newbie, untested with a franchise as big and as demanding as Trek, it was actually a bold move on Paramount’s part to have a guy who’d by then only just wrapped his first big screen movie (MI3) and had only one successful TV show (Lost). If i were a Wars fan however, this may seem like a victory but its a rather hollow one I think. The appointment of JJ Abrams to do Star Wars shows a hugely lazy attitude and a complete lack of imagination and originality within Disney and Lucasfilm. That’s not to say JJ Abrams will do a bad job but come on, the guy has been doing Star Trek since 2007 and whilst he’s done a good job with Trek, why on earth would Lucasfilm and Disney want the Star Trek director to make Star Wars? Regardless of talent and passion, if there was any originality left at Disney and Lucasfilm, they, like Paramount did when looking for the guy to reinvent Trek, would have gone for someone who could put their own unique stamp on Star Wars and not someone who could do with Star Wars what he’s done with Star Trek…

I would have gone for someone either unknown or someone who wasn’t the obvious choice. With JJ Abrams, he may make a great Star Wars movie but its not going to be as fresh or as bold as Abrams Star Trek.

I have to say I’m happy Abrams gets to direct his “Dream Project”. But as a Trek fan i’m kinda upset. Star Trek Into Darkness has just started it’s press tour, and now all we’re going to hear is questions about star wars. I’m also worried Trek actors are going to be in the new Star Wars film, which I believe to be a worse case situation! Also I don’t know how Abrams is going to utilize his “Bad Robot” production company. Like honestly, he’ll have ILM & Skywalker sound and all the other Lucasfilm companies at his disposal. So if I were a Bad Robot employee, i’d kinda get worried about what my role in Star Wars would be. All in all, i’m not to pleased about it. And I feel bad for paramount, who got Trek into features in the first place to compete against Star Wars. Was I shocked he was choses to do it? NO! Am I disappointed? Yes!

1005. Khan 2.0 –
Interesting fantasy there but let’s face it, even if JJ’s Ep. VII is the worst SW movie ever, which it won’t be, it’s going to do a billion plus box office world wide. Maybe even a WHOLE LOT MORE!

It sucks when you have to share your director with the competition. I mean, I know I don’t want to do the whole “ST versus SW” thing, but I can’t help but do it.

I’m tired, frankly, of SW’s all the glory as a cinematic franchise when it really hasn’t put in the time or effort to be a philosophical force to be reckoned with. Or should I say, “Force”? Gimme a break. Like Han Solo, I’m totally skeptical about this “Force” business. (Or this “midichloridan” (??) business, which is a whole ‘nother cop-out, but let’s not go there.)

SW isn’t supposed to be us. It’s supposed to be some kind of allegory, and in fact it has nothing in it that really makes any kind of realistic sense. Jedi? Bad Jedi? Sith Lords? Come on! Be serious — are there Sith Lords among us?

By contrast, eugenics is a serious deal. It actually exists. Bizarre or not, a “Khan”-type guy could actually exist in the near future. A god-emperor such as Palpatine? Not so much. Again, SW is an allegory, a fantasy, a popcorn franchise.

K-7, you have confirmed my suspicions. This Brea Tonnika person claiming to have been here for years, but claiming to have ignored all the huge Trek topics, yet decided MJ was the topic that interest her finally enough to post — that is just not credible.

I agree with you — this Tonnika person, Son of Jello, roykick probably others — are just stunkill up to his old tricks.

When asked why JJ changed his mind, he came clean and finally admitted, “Pfff, Star Trek loyalty? Did you see the movie I made? Yeah, their uniforms are the right color and I got the original Spock, but look at the rest! I wasn’t even loyal to the tie in comic my writers wrote! HA! Ka-ching!”

You know I think Bad Robot will be around for the 3rd Star Trek Movie if we get one because they need to finish what they started, Paramount has a contract and they will not allow Trek’s 50th to go by without a new Movie, Now I know Fans don’t like the Fact that JJ has moved to Star Wars, but you can Produce Star Trek without needing to direct it, Orci said that the band is breaking up but that doesn’t mean that a Majority of the Band will not be around to do a Third Movie, Bad Robot is more then JJ, I think Orci and the other Writers can make a Great Thrid movie if we get one, but I don’t see Paramount Abandoning it’s Team that revived Trek.

I agree with 1007 that we can get good Trek from people at Bad Robot while JJ works on Star Wars from Bad Robot, Neather Trek or Star Wars are going anywhere and JJ helped get a new fan base for Trek that wasn’t there before yes he did make some Star Trek fans angry with his take but after Nemsis, Star Trek 2009 was our best hope at getting new trek or we would have to wait years and years to get new trek on Screen.

Here is a post from Trekweb from last Wednesday 23rd January, I thought it has some important information to share here for the fans still interested in STID.

! SPOILER ALERT !

StarTrek.com sent to us this small Press Release with contains a briefly new synopsis of Star Trek Into Darkness (minor spoilers)

Starfleet is in shambles, Earth is in ruins, and countless lives have been lost as a mysterious, malevolent force scorches its way through space. It’s up to the brave crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise to hunt down those responsible to bring them to justice. To celebrate the upcoming theatrical release of Star Trek Into Darkness on May 17th, CBS Consumer Products is exclusively offering fans of the famous franchise the chance to buy the movie’s legendary poster. Featuring the seemingly unstoppable entity standing amid wreckage forming the rough outline of the Starfleet insignia, the poster can only be purchased in the StarTrek.com shop.

A must-have for fans, the 23” x 35” poster is available for $19.95. We thought your readers would be interested in reading about this exciting news. Please click here for the entire Star Trek poster line, and let us know if you have any questions

“Abrams proved with his reboot of “Star Trek” that there was a place for complex drama amidst the CGI, that the fantastical world of space is still just a place, and in that place are humans (or humanoid like creatures, anyway)with problems that can’t be solved with just a laser.

If anything else, “Star Wars” has always been about people fighting against oppression of one kind or another, and what’s more complex than that? I don’t suspect Abrams is going to go against everything else he’s ever done and move “Star Wars” into overtly dark terrain (unless he’s been hiding a Christopher Nolan-like desire to make every toy I’ve ever owned into a mess of psycho-sexual pain and suffering), but I do have a slight fear of the winking earnestness of “Super 8,” though that may be more about Steven Spielberg than Abrams himself.

Nevertheless, the “Star Wars” franchise has always been a little goofy, which lines up well with Abrams ability to find rakish humor in the midst of otherwise otherworldly events – he did this exceptionally on “Lost” but it’s one of many things missing from his latest show, the Abercrombie & Fitch-in-dystopia “Revolution” – and I can only hope that Abrams, unlike Lucas, creates characters more for their ability to enhance a scene dramatically than to fill the coffers of Hasbro”

There is no doubt in my mind that JJ is going to make a kickass Star Wars. Which…really…shouldn’t be that hard since the bar got set so low. There hasn’t been a really good Star Wars since 1980. Roland Emmerich could probably turn out something better than the past few films, and that is a terrible thing to contemplate.

I AM glad to see two new big SF films coming out that have no history, i.e., Oblivion and After Earth. Then of course there will be the long awaited, eagerly anticipated Bob Orci production of Ender’s Game, which I am as excited for as Star Trek.

So I have my fingers crossed that this will be a good — PROFITABLE — year for SF in the cinema, because I would love to see more variety on the screen, and more chances taken with new material.

I am wondering though, with all this new excitement regarding JJ and Star Wars….. if this will impact or steal the thunder away from ST:ID’s May release or hurt it in anyway?

To be honest – with ST:ID right around the corner, this news could not have happened at a worse time, Personally, I wonder if JJ will be pressured to “wrap things” up with ST:ID’s post-production ASAP to begin work on SW:VII?

Soooo….If JJ Abrams doesn’t direct the third Trek, and this 2nd one makes a boatload of money so that Para will most definitely greenlight their 3rd, will Abrams and company HAVE to be involved? I know they are under contract, but they could always buy it out.

Whoever would direct the next one would be crazy to follow Abrams. Like mad. A mad man. Hey!!!!

Wow, I take a weekend off and somebody I have never heard of (Brea Tonnika), who doesn’t understand my regular type of humor I use here, leads some shit-storm of personal attacks against me, with the usual suspects, stunkill and Son of Jello, backing her up.

I’ve got two things to say in response to this:

(1) Brea Tonnica, if you are a legit poster here, I apologize if my posts offended you in any way, but would encourage you to have a better sense of humor and not take this stuff so seriously; or

(2) Brea Tonnica, if you are really stunkill as some are suggesting, then sham on you for dragging me through the mud with you latest round on shenanigans here.

Craiger, the cast of nuTrek is signed for 3 movies. So, if the sequel makes a lot of money at the box office, you can take it the bank that their will be a sequel regardless of whether the Supreme Court is still involved or not.

@1028 “There is no doubt in my mind that JJ is going to make a kickass Star Wars. Which…really…shouldn’t be that hard since the bar got set so low. There hasn’t been a really good Star Wars since 1980. Roland Emmerich could probably turn out something better than the past few films, and that is a terrible thing to contemplate. I AM glad to see two new big SF films coming out that have no history, i.e., Oblivion and After Earth. Then of course there will be the long awaited, eagerly anticipated Bob Orci production of Ender’s Game, which I am as excited for as Star Trek. So I have my fingers crossed that this will be a good — PROFITABLE — year for SF in the cinema, because I would love to see more variety on the screen, and more chances taken with new material.”

Outstanding post, DM. I agree with everything you said, and am hopeful that this is going to be a big year for scifi. I am also hopeful that the new syfy series, Defiance, looks as good as its trailer suggests. Also, Neil Blomkamp’s ultra secret film, Elysium, is coming out this year, as well at another season of the outstanding Falling Skies on TNT.

So what? JJ Abrams and Bad Robot are some of the most overrated things in Hollywood. People nowadays have no idea what a great director is.
And I think Paramount and Disney are getting what they deserve, a producer/director who can never commit to anything because he is overbooked.

I have always been a fan of JJ’s Story telling, and am so eternally grateful that he brought Trek back to life. Although as a sci-fi I have watched every “wars” film, I prefer Trek. This move – to Direct a Star Wars film in 2015 (when his exclusive Paramount contract runs out) feels like the truest example of a “Conflict of Interest” – and would even more so if he were to work both franchises…

MJ, this may be a dumb question but without the Supreme Court on the third one would they still keep the same look and feel? I guess maybe they would since the sets would still be their. Or unless they wanted to create new sets with the same cast? Maybe they would do something like how the original 1701 got upgraded in TMP with the third movie?

Jack I don’t think they would ever go with want Trek fans want. If they did we would get a Trek/SW crossover. Or a Trek/SG1 crossover. Or a Trek/BSG crossover. LOL. Which I think would be cool but would never happen.

MJ why don’t you take what has been said about you, your comments and attitude towards people in this forum and stop alienaiting people.There was no sh-t storm no one attacked you that’s just your overinflated sense of your own importance to this forum. And if you had enough common decency and respect for other people’s input and comments (which you clearly don’t) and read what is written and not your personal daydream of what is said you may yet become someone who isn’t an overly defensive Bully. Who’s only skill seems to be overeacting to some imagined slight against you. Listen and read before you speak and you wont come across as such a fool.

@1049. Well, I think it would be cool anyway if the third movie ended up being more of an intense scifi approach versus another revenge-action movie, so for me, having a bit of a different focus for movie #3 might be needed in any case. And I think this can be done best with Bob leading a new production team that comes in with a new approach to the story, but keeping continuity as well with the first two movies.

Unfortunately not much more is known or being publicized about the movie STID at the moment and so people tend to focus on other things and nothing seems to make some people as keen as ever to be able to talk about Star Wars, bash JJ Abrams, crystall ball gaze and catastrophize. Quite strange really but not unexpected really, given the history of postings to this site over time.

I do agree that it is time for people who have been unable to see the STID preview for whatever the reason get the opportunity to do so, as they have done with the trailers. I managed to get a look at a bootleg copy of the preview, but of course, the video has now been removed by the copyright owners. The visual and audio were not good at all but I am glad I got to see as much as I did.

Damn it, Paramount – do you want to promote STID or not? Do you want people to go see the film? Do you want to recoup the investment of $170-$200 million, at the very least?

Hopefully, even this site will stop talking Star Wars (yawn…) and start talking Kirk practise his skills at being able to talk a computer to death…:)

Brea Tonnica – I agree that MJ could be nice(r) with some of his replies and, as MJ will attest, MJ and I have had our disagreements.

However I do not like someone who claims they have been reading but never posting to suddenly post negative putdowns about a poster who does contribute to the conversation, whether or not there is always agreement. I have had one or two people do to me what you just did to MJ and it is not nice at all. It feels like an ambush. It is insulting and demeaning.

It would better if you are able to make a contribution to the topics under discussion and try to discuss/debate/argue ideas, rather than ONLY just criticize someone who has no idea who you are.

Rose I do think their is such a thing as over promotion like I think they did with the last movie. By the time we saw we knew most of what was going to happen. I think something in the middle would be cool.

@1054. I hear you and realize that I could behave better. But seriously,dude, there seems to be a bit of an amazing coincidence to me that these people coming out of the woodwork that past couple of weeks to criticize me are new posters. No one here had ever heard of Son of Jello before he showed up to criticize me??? No one here had ever heard of Brea Tonnika here before she showed up to criticize me???

I will try to behave better, but seriously, if having a little fun with some smart-pants quips here is going to constantly piss people off, then those people don’t really have as thick a skin as they should have to be posting in internet.

I don’t take myself very seriously, and neither should you or others. If things I say here are “ruining your day” or something, then that is your problem not mine. People that “hate me” here need to either ignore me or “get a life” — I am not very important nor worth their trouble — I am just a guy posting on an anonymous Trek web site…big deal!

I think Orci should be made executive producer of the whole franchise, like Harve Bennett or Chris Berman. He loves Star Trek, he’s earned it. I would feel comfortable having JJ hand over the captains chair to him!

I can’t think of many film series that was very good their third time out. Especially with the same director. I think it would be very wise for the creative team to step away and let somebody else have a crack at it.

Abrams might just make the first Star Wars film I like. I think his style is much more in tune with that universe. That being said, I DO like his Star Trek, though it was far from perfect. But there never has been a perfect Trek film.

Hey though, it it takes me to get them involved and actively posting on this site, even if the reasons are not positive towards me, then at least I guess I am helping in a sort of twisted way to bring more participants and more discussion to this great website!

1045. The Optimist – January 27, 2013
Bob, would you still write for a third movie even if JJ can’t direct it? Also would you still be involved with the comics? Thanks.

———

At this moment in time, while we are still working on STID, and before it is even released, I honestly don’t know. It’s not a no. Even if JJ were committed to ST3, it would not mean that Alex and I would be back. As I have always said, I only wanna be around as long as i feel I can help Star Trek. The next few months will tell us all much.

The biggest challenge JJ will have is in reconnecting fans of the orginal trilolgy to the new movie. I mean, seriously, excepting Harrison Ford, have you seen photos lately of Hammil and Fischer? I mean, come on, I hat to pick on older stars, but they don’t look like what we would hope and older Luke and Leia would like like.

I think they might be better to recast the big 3 in SW and pick up right after ROTJ left off. Seeing a bunch of 70-year olds not looking so hot is going to be depressing.

i don’t think Star Trek could realistically become a tv show again now. First off, the production cost for a decent scifi cgi would be too high.
Second, the revival of interest in ST in 2009 was brought on by the new cast, whether old time Trekkies like it or not…many (MANY) of the new ST audience are non scifi fans who will go see the movies just for Pine etc. Not many of said moviegoers would care for a new show with new unknown actors and characters. and few if any of the current actors would sign on for a tv show now.

MJ, what about rebooting SW? Could they do a different twist on them so we don’t know how it all ends? Imagine the same hype of who would play the new Trek cast and who would be the new SW cast. Speculating on who would replace Hamill, Ford and Fischer.

@1072 I agree. As much as I would love to see the original cast, he almost has no choice but to go with a new cast. And he certainly can’t do a timeline thingy like Trek 09…been there, done that. Besides, Star Wars doesn’t deal with timelines, time-travel, etc.

@1076. Well that would be preferable to the concept of old farts handing the baton off to young guns that we have never heard of — unfortunately, that’s the approach that I sense they are going with for Ep 7.

I’ve posted before here on this in detail — I think after this trilogy is complete, nuTrek lends itself nicely to moving to HBO or Showtime with 10-episodes produced per year with a story arc each season, etc.

Paramount does NOT own all distribution rights to STAR TREK. Only the motion pictures’ archive. Moonves himself got the current reboot rolling by ordering the person in charge of movie Trek at Paramount at the time to get the ball rolling or lose all license to make Trek.

CBS can make whatever Trek it wants outside of what license it gave Paramount. The main reason Trek is not on tv is Moonves hates it as a television phenomena and prefers to keep it at arms length. But of course, he is constantly scheming to reunite Paramount and CBS with him at the head, so Lord only knows what happens to Trek, if that comes to pass.

#978. LtHumphry

At least the yeast in the engines could be full of The Force and that would make some sort of sense.

#1083 – Wrong, Moonves said he liked the way Enterprise was going under Coto but ultimately had to cancel it because of the ratings. In the TV business its all about money and not what fans want. Just look at Jericho. fans got another season by writing in and it still tanked in the ratings. Same with Chuck.

If Moonves saw another Trek series could make CBS money he would green light it. In this economy you can’t take a chance on expensive TV shows anymore. They would have to get at least 10 million viewers or more per week and hold it for the whole series to keep it on the air. Sometimes even 10 million viewers isn’t enough.

Shilliam, It’s all personal opinion of course, but I thought Dark Knight Rises was the best of the three. And although The Two Towers was my favorite LOTR film, one can hardly argue that the quality was consistent across all three movies — it was basically one 10 hour film with two intermissions.

I think that the Supreme Court has a kind of storytelling logic to it, especially in the way we are being led into hints for STID. So even though I think done things are “wrong” — like the destruction of Vulcan — I strongly support Bob and anyone else from this team hat hoped to continue as director or with another director. While big budget tent pole films tend to also be standalone if they are excellent, a case can be made that this version of the crew really isn’t Star Trek yet, but becoming Trek. So they have a responsibility to finish the job.

1089. MJ – Yes, definitely a matter of opinion. Unless we’re talking Robocop and Terminator ;-) Fellowship was my favorite Rings film. It had the most heart to me. The other two just seem like one long battle to me. Gorgeous to look at, for sure, and still amazing to watch, but it grows tedious.

Speaking of opinions, Last Crusade WAS better than Temple of Doom, but far inferior still to Raiders. I sometimes wish they’d only made the first film. And they NEVER should have made that last one. Even without Shia the Beef it would have been awful.

In my opinion. I keep repeating that because people here are so quick to attack when somebody criticizes something they love. Especially when Anthony goes missing. That’s when the psychos come out of the shadows for longer periods of time, blinking in the harsh light of day, pissed at their long exile in the dark and ready to spit their disdain at the first passerby.

This just in: J.J. Abrams slated to direct and produce all studio films and television shows from this point forward. Directors across the globe scrambling to Indy films and weddings. “I’m doing college graduations and Survivor: The Next Generation for now. If J.J. adds reality television, I don’t know what I’ll do. Word on the street is next year he’s doing a re-boot of Buffy. What’s left for the rest of us?” says a drunken and despondent Josh Whedon. Jon Favreau simply lifted a bottle of 60 year old Mccutcheon and waved his middle finger as he packaged his notes from 3 Iron Man movies into a box headed for Abrams.

JJ is jumping a sinking ship, and without him Trek franchise is D E A D!
Look at the facts, to jump start Trek JJ had to take it to an alt reality….DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WILL HAVE TO PULL THAT CONVOLUTED PIECE OF CRAP TO CONTINUE STAR WARS??

TREK TV SERIES? CBS have no finance to carry it
STAR WARS SERIES, Disney has a hard on for the force and it could well happen.

I disagree about temple of doom….sillier in tone on purpose…yet still eexciting….great action and sets….Indy heroic having to rescue the kids and save the people….I find the third one although great similar to the first one…..

This happens in all fandoms when some new incarnation is created and will continue to happen in all fandoms until the end of time. boborci might remember that it was especially bad when Michael Bay’s first Transformers movie was announced and released. You had thousands of people come out of the wood works and declared that they were the True Fans because they only followed the Generation 1 cartoon.

At least in the Trek fandom these sorts of people presumably remember Star Trek. The problem for the Transformers people were these sorts of people tended to *not* remember anything about Transformers and hadn’t paid any attention to it for 20 years! Not saying to be a fan one need to be some sort of walking wiki of facts, but really, such people shouldn’t charge into forums and websites and declare other people traitors because they dared to be fans of later incarnations/other continuities of the franchise.

It got bad enough that TRUE FAN became a form of derisive in-joke on forums and anybody who turned up declaring they were such were mocked.

@1096 Gotta love it — this aggressive and asinine Star Wars fan, whose franchise’s last great movie was 33 years ago, is trash-talking here? We are the franchise that has had several great movies since his franchise had their last good one.

Romulus, I’m watching The Phantom Menace while “laughing at the superior intellect.”

@1098. K-7, by making that statement, you are insulting all great jackasses throughout time. This dude is doesn’t even qualify to be a jackass apprentice.

When asked about the package from Favreau, Abrams indicated that he’d already thrown the package away. “As you know, I prefer not to know the content of any of my boxes. I can’t imagine Jon had any ideas that didn’t already end up on the screen.”
Bill Murray indicated that while J.J. had an ambitious schedule for Ghostbusters 3-5 (November 2013), He didn’t see any way around doing them. “Look, at this point it’s J.J. or what? M. Night Shyamalan? Please. ”
When asked what he thought about the whole thing, Greg Grunberg smiled quietly and said “What’s it mean to me? I got one word for you- Rosebud.”

There is no one else. These two love Star Trek and would really make it happen for us.

We need a real Trekkie running this thing”

Seth McFarlane? Ew. No. Just no.

I think you’re forgetting that neither Harve Bennet nor Nicholas Meyer were fans of Star Trek and they delivered what is still considered to be Star Trek’s finest movie, that Roddenberry had absolutely nothing to do with. It doesn’t matter how much of a fan you are of a property to do a good job, what matters is your talent and drive, and that of the team you work with.

I find it a problem that these days whenever a remake or movie version of an older franchise is announced, the creative team have to declare that they are TOTALLY FANS, JUST LIKE YOU. In some cases, it’s true. But really, I don’t care if they are fans or not, but rather how much effort and good work they put into the project for which they were hired. That’s what really matters.

I can’t speak to any of the personality/gossip stuff, but as I understand it, Paramount does in fact control the distribution of all existing TV shows (you’ll see their logo on every Bluray/DVD of every series). CBS has exclusive rights to produce *new* television content, however.

1106. sean – I’m a huge fan of Whedon’s Buffy, but I don’t mind seeing somebody else take a whack at it. Whedon’s already done over 250 episodes of Buffy and Angel, and is too busy to do it anyway, so why not? I love seeing another person’s interpretation of things. It might be crap, but that’s a risk I’ll take. I still have Whedon’s vision tucked safely away on disc.

It’s fairly standard in Hollywood for director’s to have First Look options in these deals. Mr. Orci could give the answer to what the chain is for the script. I imagine the legal chain is he has to submit the finished script to Paramount and once Paramount endorses it, they officially hand it to Mr. Abrams to exercise his options?

“Look, when you think of a re-boot for Scientology…your first thought might not be someone jewish, but I think that’s what I love about it” indicated Tom Cruise. When told Scientology wasn’t a movie or tv show, Mr. Cruise simply laughed then switched to his serious face.

“The Dark Knight Rises” wasn’t quite as good as the first two, but it still was a great ending to a great trilogy.

I like all three “Lord Of The Rings” movies equally.

“The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly” was easily the best of the “Man With No Name Trilogy”. “A Fistful Of Dollars” and “For A Few Dollars More” were good, but pale in comparison.

“Star Trek III: The Search For Spock” is my second favorite Trek movie of the original six. A great, and very underrated and underappreciated third chapter in the big screen adventures of the original cast.

The whole “Toy Story” trilogy is great, with the third one being the best, in my opinion.

Your condescending, arrogant attitude on this thread is uncalled for. You really need to calm down.

Paramount, in no way whatsoever, is going to let “Star Trek” just roll over and die because J.J Abrams is going to do “Star Wars”. On the contrary, the studio is going to have to make sure that the third movie is in production a lot sooner than STID was after the first movie.

1113. Red Dead Ryan – Goldfinger might be my favorite Bond film with Connery. Toy Story 3 WAS indeed the best. TSFS would be my third favorite TOS Trek film.

But for every Toy Story 3 we seem to get two or three Robocop 3s. But I’m not saying definitively that Abrams and Orci couldn’t do it. I’m trying to put a positive spin on the situation. And I really WOULD like to see another creative team’s attempt at Trek.

I think decent “third films” is going to become more and more commonplace. I think, for the most part, studios and producers have more at their disposal, plus movie-making is under so much more scrutiny these days.

Sure, we’ll still see crappy sequels and threequels every so often, but as long as the direct-to-home video sequel/threequel making is kept to a minimum, I think we’ll be seeing more critically successful threequels in the near future.

Oh yeah, “The Bourne Trilogy” is great too. The third one, “Ultimatum” is the best of the bunch.

Fall 2013:
Television Drama
Title: 6925
Each week, cabdriver Ferrell Manion (L.O.S.T. actor Michael Emerson) picks up individuals in front of a famous L.A. Landmark. It quickly becomes clear that Manion only picks up actors…out of work actors…known primarily for one famous role. Over the course of the hour he asks questions about choices the actor made regarding the character. The questions are uncomfortable and passengers begin to realize that life depends on what they say. Some will live, some will die…the audience decides.
Emerson indicated that while he wasn’t particularly happy about what happens to Adam West in the pilot, he understands that a show has to find it’s legs. “If Adam had to lose his so we could find ours, I suppose that’s a fair trade” said the wide eyed star.
Producer: J.J. Abrams.

1119. Red Dead Ryan – I hope you’re right. And the other films you cite are indeed strong third parts, but neither is better than the first and second films, and that’s what I want. A series should go out with its strongest film.

Normally I’d be open to it, but it’s being made by the Kazuis, who were responsible for the heavily compromised film version. They had absolutely no creative input into Buffy or Angel, but because Joss was a young, inexperienced creator they happen to own the rights to the character.

@1112 “Take a long hard look at that Enterprise come May because it’s the last your going to see it for a very long time. I’m not trolling, just stating how the financial wind is blowing.”

Yes, you are trolling,because Trek movies were coming out at the same time of the original SW trilogy, so this statement is completely without merit other than a lame attempt to bait many of us here.

And I hate to break it to you, dude, but when you see SW7 in 2015, Luke, Leia, and Solo (the young ones) are not going to be in; neither is Alec Guinness, neither is Darth Vader…it is going to be fat old Hamill and ugly old fat Leia handing the baton off to their supposed new Jedi children, who are going to be some lame “young jedi” bunch, to fight some lame new darth ___fill in the blank___ thing. Ouch! JJ is a good director though, so I think the movie will be better received than the sequels, but there is no way even JJ can create what can no longer be created — a great original star wars story with the cast from the original trilogy, and a great story that makes sense given evertyhing was wrapped up at the conclusion of ROTJ.

1123. sean – I forgot the Kazuis are doing it. Well, let’s hope they can find talented people this time. I should think they’d have a better appreciation for it’s possibilities now.

1127. sean – Another director does seem to be a real possibility. But starting dates are always projections and you never know what could happen. Still, the only people under contract for #3 is the cast, at least as far as I know. Nobody can day anything definitive at this point.

#1128 “And I hate to break it to you, dude, but when you see SW7 in 2015, Luke, Leia, and Solo (the young ones) are not going to be in; neither is Alec Guinness, neither is Darth Vader…it is going to be fat old Hamill and ugly old fat Leia handing the baton off to their supposed new Jedi children, who are going to be some lame “young jedi” bunch, to fight some lame new darth ___fill in the blank___ thing. Ouch! JJ is a good director though, so I think the movie will be better received than the sequels, but there is no way even JJ can create what can no longer be created — a great original star wars story with the cast from the original trilogy, and a great story that makes sense given evertyhing was wrapped up at the conclusion of ROTJ.”

1128. MJ – You just described the Smallville-ification of Star Wars. The images made me shudder. Mark Hamill as Pa Kent, wizened and unconvincing as a Jedi, imparting wisdom to his burgeoning Jedi son. Leia,
looking like a bedraggled Cabbage Patch doll, opening her mouth to croak out sarcastic, but loving, comments.

I really hope they don’t include anybody from the originals. Not even Harrison Ford.

You can bet that if J.J Abrams casts old farts Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher, he’ll be getting some nasty emails and voicemail messages from William Shatner about not being cast in either of Abrams’ two “Star Trek” movies.

I see no reason to preach the end of Trek at this point. It has made enough money and been a big enough success for the studio to want to continue earning money from it. If Into Darkness performs well, there is no doubt there will be another Trek, no matter if JJ is available or not.

your statement: “Take a long hard look at that Enterprise come May because it’s the last your going to see it for a very long time. I’m not trolling, just stating how the financial wind is blowing.”

This statement is completely bogus — there is nothing logical at all behind it. ST and SW movies coexisted easily before, and you know it. You pulled this statement out of your ass to bait us. IT HAS NOT MERIT WHATSOVER.

Again, I agree completely with you. Yea, my friend, how does it feel? Your franchise had to to raid Trek’s talent base to make up for clusterfuk that was The Phantom Menace, Jar Jar, Midachorlians and Hayden Christensen debacles.

I happy though that we could throw a bone to you all…hopefully Jar Jar likes bones; but if not, maybe we can mix in a trip to Hometown Buffet for an all-you-can-eat dinner for Carrie and Mark, so that they can start prepping for the new movie. ;-)

Please let us know if you need any more help to resurrect your franchise.

1145. Romulus – I don’t know you very well here, but I don’t see the benefit of declaring Star Trek a “sub-prime” franchise, mainly because your opinion seems to ignore the fact that over 700 episodes of Star Trek were produced, and Eleven movies.

I would never call that sub-prime. It seems to me the only way you can judge Star Trek inferior would be to go solely by box office earnings. If that is the case, well then, you have us. Star Wars films have indeed earned more than Star Trek films.

This is about credibility here. Neither Hamill nor Fisher are fit enough to be in the next “Star Wars” movie and still maintain credibility as actors portraying older versions of the characters they originally played over thirty years ago.

Actors are different from the rest of us. They also get paid big bucks. And one of the conditions for most actors is that they be in shape because fat, over the hill actors don’t bring in the masses. They just become punchlines.

@1147. Well if Red Dead was going to play a leading role in a major action scifi, movie, then sure, I would hope he would stay in good enough shape and appearance to play whatever role he was offered. Leonard Nimoy and Alec Guinness come to mind as great examples. And many actors utilize plastic surgery and personal trainers to “look good” for major parts — there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, the recent photos I have seen of Carrie and Mark make them look like they were hangers-on at a trailer park.

Seriously, if SW episode 7 were mine, I would recast the big 3, and then bring back only Harrison Ford to serve as kind of a narrator/intro version of an older Solo to look back at the events of the new trilogy. Having Ford/Solo involve would provide some continuity, without having to awkwardly bring back all three and depress the fan base.

Mr. Orci. I am a fan from Australia. I have been a Star Trek fan since I can remember. I think the current group involved in bringing us the new Star Trek have done a fantastic job. I cannot help but feel a liitle sad now that it may not continue as it has. To you personally Mr. Bob Orci, you have bought the regular fan into the inner sanctum of Star Trek (especially from so far away as myself) – I thank you very, very much and wish you all the best. Here’s hoping you will write ST3 no matter who ends up directing. Although I hope its JJ Abrams.

“The TV side is now technically in control of the franchise’s future, and Les Moonves (the UPN head who cancelled Enterprise) hates all things sci-fi.” – Doug Mirabello, (then) assistant to Trek producer Rick Berman, DREAMWATCH, 2006

“I don’t think Les Moonves, who has essentially now taken over both UPN and Paramount, is a big fan of the show [ENTERPRISE]. And I’m not entirely sure he’s a big fan of the franchise [STAR TREK].” – John Billingsley

People age in 36 years. Although, oddly, Kirstie Alley is a few years older than Fisher. Her weight’s (Fisher’s) yo-yo-ed, but whatever. But I get what you’re saying. Also, I’d argue that Hamill was cast more for his youth than for any great charisma or acting ability. Although, it’s tough to tell — Portman and even Christensen are decent actors, but you couldn’t tell from Star Wars.

Anybody here read the SW novels? I’m wondering whether they have any canonicity at all. Their kids (Han and Leia’s) have a pretty crazy time. It seems kind of cumbersome and restricting for creating a new franchise, but what do I know?

JJ has likely known about this possibility for over a year…and I think we’ll see him do a third Trek film, to complete his series. Let’s not forget about the pro team at Bad Robot, certainly capable of doing both movie franchises. I’d rather see JJ at the helm of these projects than anyone in Hollywood.

I would like to hereby cast my official vote for Bob Orci to take over stewardship of Star Trek and to direct the 3rd Trek installment, making sure it comes out during 2016, the shows 50th anniversary.

I would really really dig Roberto Orci taking over as executive producer. There are some pluses to that too, he is more of a Star Trek fan than Abrams, he’s still a major part of Bad Robot who I still believe can be instrumental in producing Star Trek, he currently consults and helps with the Trek comic and video games so has already taken the role of executive producer on much of what we’ve seen beyond the Trek movie.

Who ever said that whilst Abrams is busy on Star Wars that someone else like Roberto Orci can’t man the wheel.

I understand JJ and I’m even happy for him because he’s a star wars fan himself but I’m concerned about what this means for star trek.
I will be honest here, when I heard about Disney and them wanting to make more movies about star wars my first thought had been that they wanted to copy Abrams’ star trek in the hope that just because people liked the latter they would automatically love (and buy) their thing too ^.
I’m a fan of both, I love star wars too but I’m not sure that it needs more movies especially right now .. I really don’t know what they can do with it tbh. Kudos to JJ for trying but he’s taking a big risk here and personally I would have firstly completed my journey with ST (that is already successful) and then direct one of the movies about star wars when, in case of failure, I wouldn’t get the blame for trying. It feels a bit like if he’s giving up a good thing for something that he doesn’t even know if it will work. I also see a bit of conflict here.

I doubt that he will direct the third movie now and tbh I don’t trust a new director with the last movie that is the conclusion of the whole trilogy.

Trek will go on in spite of (or maybe because of) this because SW will be so much better under JJA. Even the last three SW films made money despite their suckiness and on his watch it will be much better. As for Trek, I have no problem with someone else directing or writing it as long as the final product is a quality one with a story that is consistent with the Trek philosophy. Quite frankly, I don’t care what era it covers and what characters are depicted, again as long as it’s a quality Trek movie or series.

Hopes are only hopes. But bussines is bussines. Abrams can’t be Director and co-writer of SW and executive producer of ST at the same time. In Wonderland, yes. In our world, not. Paramount and Disney are huge rivals, and SW and ST are rival franchises.

The martketing of ST into the Darknest has turned into Marketing of SW ep. VII. This is a big trouble for Paramount. Abrams right now is SW and SW overshadows ST because of Abrams. Paramount can’t permit Disney -Abrams-SW agenda overshadows its own agenda with ST for years and years….. Bussines is bussines. And without Abrams and Burke, Bad Robot is Weak Robot.
Paramount can’t permit ST to be the eternal second choice…

The word is: incompatibility.
In my opinión this is the last ST movie of Bad Robot. Paramount -Bad Robot contract ends in 2015…So, wait, and see

1049. Craiger – January 27, 2013
MJ, this may be a dumb question but without the Supreme Court on the third one would they still keep the same look and feel? I guess maybe they would since the sets would still be their. Or unless they wanted to create new sets with the same cast? Maybe they would do something like how the original 1701 got upgraded in TMP with the third movie?

___________________________________________________________

Yep. And then it would be terrible.
Exhibit A: X-Men 3. Brett Ratner comes in after Bryan Singer left to “try to keep the same look and feel” of the X-men movies series and ends up with huge steaming turd of a movie.

Exhibit B: Superman Returns. Bryan Singer tried to carbon copy the “look and feel” of the OG Donner Superman movie, and yet creates another turd of a movie.

A new director should not try to copy exactly what was done before in a franchise, but should bring their own talents and do what they feel is right. A good, recent example would be Joss Whedon’s Avengers. He did his own thing rather than copy the mold of the previous Marvel movies. It turned out pretty well.

Star Wars and Star Trek may be rival franchises but they really shouldn’t be. One deals in fantasy, the other in hard science, one is set in a far far away kingdom, the other is set in our world, one commentates on social and ethical issues, the other is good vs evil and whilst both are set in space, neither share anything in common so perhaps although its surreal having a Star Trek director help out Star Wars, having Abrams possibly do both may just allow for everyone to realise they are not the same thing.

At this moment in time, while we are still working on STID, and before it is even released, I honestly don’t know. It’s not a no. Even if JJ were committed to ST3, it would not mean that Alex and I would be back. As I have always said, I only wanna be around as long as i feel I can help Star Trek. The next few months will tell us all much.

_________________________________________________________

So, it looks like there’s our answer. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, etc., will most likely NOT be involved with the writing of ST3. They might be involved as a producer or consulting credit, but that’s it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing against them, it might be good to get some fresh blood. If Abrams still produces, he will have input in the movie, so there will still be that “JJ feel” even with lens flares.

I’m a huge fans of Abrams, but i’m not blind. CBS-Paramount can’t permit ST to be a second choice for Abrams for years and years…a they can’t permit ST date of premier should be subordinate to the date of the premier of ST VII, ST VIII or ST IX.
Bussines is bussines.
And SW ep vii is a huge huge huge work. . And remember: Bad Robot-Paramount contract end in 2015. No time for making more trek films. And maybe , no more desire.

Paramount announce that a new Star Trek Animated series will launch in the fall of 2013 with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman staying on as executive consultants. Based on Captain Kirk et al after the events of Star Trek Into Darkness…

Star Trek 3 is announced as being produced by Bad Robot and JJ Abrams. Writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindeloff begin working on Star Trek 3 script in 2014.

Throughout 2014 and 15, the Star Trek writing team continues to develop story for Trek 3 with input from Abrams.

2015 Star Wars opens

Abrams decides whether or not to direct Star Trek 3. If not then hopfuls include Brad Bird and Joss Whedon.

In early 2016 Star Trek 3 begins principle photography and filming begins on JJ Abrams final Star Trek feature film. Cast includes all the Abrams regulars plus new additions, none of which appeared in Star Wars.

In the fall of 2016 and with the 50th anniversary of Star Trek well underway. JJ Abrams releases Star Trek 3 teaser trailer for Star Trek 3

A huge celebration takes place celebrations Star Trek and its influence over 50 years. Celebrations involve fans from around the world, Star Trek alumni, NASA and other technology and scientific companies and groups that have been inspired by Star Trek.

Paramount and CBS announce that a new team will come together to develop a new Star Trek TV series based within the universe JJ Abrams set up to continue the Star Trek legacy into the future and beyond…

So, it looks like there’s our answer. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, etc., will most likely NOT be involved with the writing of ST3. They might be involved as a producer or consulting credit, but that’s it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing against them, it might be good to get some fresh blood. If Abrams still produces, he will have input in the movie, so there will still be that “JJ feel” even with lens flares.

——————————————————————————————————

I don’t think our answer is there… As I understand it, the Supreme Court had this mind set when approaching a sequel to Star Trek 2009. Orci even said “it’s not a no”.

I really don’t think the news of Abrams doing SW changes anything with Star Trek. If Star Trek Into Darkness does well and the Supreme Court feel they have another story to tell they will be bad, JJ and all. Whether Abrams role will be just producer or director depends on his involvement with Star Wars.

“Enterprise never had really bad ratings. It actually was pulling better numbers than Galactica, which was a hit for Sci Fi. What really killed it [ENTERPRISE], IMO, was Les Moonves, the head over there. He didin’t get Star Trek, didn’t care for sci-fi, and there was no love loss between him and Mr. Berman (or so I’ve heard).” – Doug Drexler

The content filter’s been giving me heck about some character sequence in this post. I’m apologizing in advance if it decides to spit them all out as is occasionally its wont. Apparently doesn’t like the link to his blog where he made these remarks.

Why are you posting old articles about Les Moonves? We all know the guy is an expletive that can’t be repeated here however, he hasn’t done much wrong with Star Trek so far with CBS converting TNG and now Enterprise into blu ray and CBS Consumer Products continuing to sell licenses to quality (sometimes crap) companies who have produced merchandise.

Moonves obviously knows Star Trek can make money but I think it’s better for Star Trek and CBS if the way they make the money off of it is left to a production company like Bad Robot.

Wow, you are the only one, my pal. Everybody knows this stuff changes all.

Well, Wait and see,
My prediction:
December 2015: Bad Robot Paramount contract ends
(No more Bad robot’s ST movies, because no time for making them)
2016: a new tv series in the original time line (because CBS bussines, and great bussines, is the original time line, not the new timeline. Producer: Seth Mac Farlane)
2018: Reboot of the next generation with other team and actors…Maybe Nolan or Whedon.

And others keep posting about Paramount putting live and animated series on the broadcast air which they have no rights to so do. Also others were asking for a break from STAR WARS – I know it was a silly to make such a request in the comment section of an article about Mr. Abrams taking the SW gig, but I thought some would appreciate the break, if not the education.

My last Moonves post was going to be how he killed using the same 3D conversion process being used for STID on those TNG and ENT conversions.

So Abrams produces ST3 & brings someone else into the directors chair, so what?! That’s exactly what happened to the last Mission Impossible film and that was even better than the previous one! Who’s to say that isn’t gonna happen here!?

2016 – Star Wars VII: A New Dawn released – critics are divided. some love it some think it too referential to the original trilogy. only does a disappointing $791m ww while Avengers 2 takes home $2b in the same month.

2016: Star Trek Revolutions released. directed by Brett Ratner – like SW7 reviews are fairly mixed. this time too much action at the expense of story, but amazingly does slightly better box office than Star Wars 7 – $860m ww (thanks in part to the 50th anniversary) Another movie is commissioned despite the definitive end to the trilogy (timeline is restored:)

thing i could never quite figure out about star wars (maybe some can shed some light on this) was Luke, Han and all the humans are obviously our human forefathers right?

Its never mentioned in any of the movies but that’s what Lucas must’ve been (silently) intending right? “A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away” is obviously a spin on fairy tales but it certainly hints that the humans in the movies are mankinds ancestors (like Battlestar)

The Force could be todays psychic phenomena- people who bend spoons, ghosts etc…..and ET appearing in the senate in Phantom Menace could be a tie into to earth (i know it was only meant as a fun thing but still)

maybe JJ will address this….

Are there any Star Wars novels or comics that have any connection to this theory? The only one I know of is the Star Wars Tales comic of Indy finding the Millennium Falcon in the jungle that crashed 200 years earlier (Solo and chewie crash the MF in the year 1800 and Indy uncovers it in 1936…which could mean ‘A Long Time Ago’ wasnt that long at all…unless you account for the light speed time travel etc )

I’ll say this much. I an a Trek fan first, but am also an Abrams fan. I have long been bored to moribund tears by Star Wars. Boring archetypical stories, forced and transparent marketing/toy selling, and for the most late, acting so god-awful that it sometimes felt like watching an episode of the Love Boat in space.

But if anyone can drag Star Wars out of the morass of mediocrity, It’s JJA.

with the latest news regarding j.j. and the subsequent comments from bob orci, i have to say my excitement for “into darkness” went from about a 9.5 down to a 3. everything about this movie event now feels like a “lame duck” production.

do i think another new team can make a great star trek movie? sure. but this just feels like bailing out in mid stream. i worry that that cast, who has said countless times, what a great environment it is to be part of, will loose their enthusiasm. ya they’re under contract for a 3rd but that only covers the logistical & financial aspects of showing up and doing the work. not the joy or magic that a cohesive energized team can produce.

as a 50 yr old fan of both trek and wars, i always felt myself emotionally gravitating more towards trek. maybe it was because it came first. maybe it was because the cast seemed a bit more like family. maybe it was because trek always seemed to be the underdog based on financial and critical acclaim.

trek ’09 raised the bar for me. it was fresh, hip, exciting, looked and sounded state of the art and still managed to be emotional and thought provoking. now i feel like the team that brought that excitement has decided to head off for greener pastures before the paint is even dry on the new fence. it just makes me sad.

bob orci- you and Alex are great and i know you will like to get involved in this in some capacity if you can. What you did for Teansformers Cartoon universe and all your projects you guys are amazing and in some form you can do both hopefully if your requested to work on SW as well.

I don’t really care either way. A 3rd movie will get made if the 2nd movie is successful. If it is not, then no movie will get made (that is why these films are NOT made for Trek fans alone).

On a side note, I do think it was a douche move to say one week that you would NOT do the films out of loyalty to a fan base only to change your mind because of money. Loyalty my @$$….just be a man and say it was because of the amount of money offered.

Maaaan…why is Pascale considered the Trek “superfan” all of a freak an sudden?! I’ve been a Trek fan since the original series/original NBC run days — ergo, in diapers. Got picked on for being a nerd and liking Star Trek in grade school. You know — back when it was NOT COOL to like sci fi!!

Went to my first convention in freakin 1973 — back when they were GOOD!! I know conventions!! I’ve interviewed and dug up info on ST:TMPs visuals that NO ONE reported on and I scored pre production art and set blueprints no one had seen before from that film from a contact who worked for Robert Abel and Associates! I’m a veritable walking encyclopedia of Trek. Not only that, but i know a shitload about FILM and film making. I know visual effects and CGI out the ass! Nobody asks for MY opinion on anything Trek!

Then this Pascale kid pops up out of nowhere and suddenly he’s the go-to guy on all things Trek! Why? Does he have naked pictures of people?

1220 I think he is considered a Trek superfan, as in one of many, not “the” Trek superfan, as it would be hard to quantify among those who qualify. Anyway, he does a great job of running this site, so good for him if he’s mentioned in an article on the internet.

“This movie was not made for STAR TREK fans; it was made for movie fans. But if you’re a STAR TREK fan, I think you’ll be really happy. There’s a lot of stuff in here for you, but we couldn’t just make the movie only for fans of STAR TREK. The thing about the movie that I love also is that we didn’t even make it for fans of the first movie we did. A lot of sequels I’ve seen tend to assume you love the characters and know them really well and get things off to a fast start where you don’t have any sense of investing in the characters in the beginning, so we tried to treat this as a movie that works on its own. Certainly it’s a sequel, certainly if you saw the first movie, great. You don’t have to have seen the first film. This movie is its own thing, and there are definitely nods to prior TREK lore in the film.” – J.J. Abrams

@DeeIvsmoon’surface (1225) — I know; I do feel a bit hurt. Fans don’t like to be told “A” and then have “not-A” happen. In my opinion, tthat’s why JJ “owes” us a Trek/Wars crossover. Again, make it a short feature. It’s the least he could do. ;-)

The thing with Star Trek was that JJ Abrams did need to make a movie for more than just the fans, with Star Wars he doesn’t because Star Wars has that mainstream popularity already which Trek didn’t and still doesn’t to the extent that Star Wars does.

Abrams could make the biggest fanboy movie and still make Disney over 1bn with Star Wars. Star Trek was a different matter.

OK, I’ll bite. Apparently there were a lot of different film stocks used in filming TMP. One report was that Wise had to use 65mm for any of the live actor shots that would require FX to be added later. Some say that it all got dumped with Abel and never used in the master print. I seem to remember an old ad were Wise was extolling using SuperPanavision in TMP. Did he?

Is it true the Klingon ships were on 16mm for some of the FX transfer process?

Why do some critics say his favored use of the diopter lens wasn’t as artful as in his earlier works?

1. JJ’s better for SW than Trek. He did what needed to do, but Keenser is a gd muppet with absolutely no place in Trek. At best, we’re left with the idea that JJ depicted our characters’ foreshortened arcs prior to the whole ‘seek out new life…’ thing that didn’t fit in his mystery box. If he moves on now, it’s an ideal time to get a director who loves Star Trek and sees it as a ten year residency, the way Nolan treated Batman, rather than a stepping stone he’s entitled to use.

2. The reason to be justifiably angry about this is that the selfish little imp made us wait and wait and wait… for a stupid film called SUPER 8, and some other forgettable crap.

3. All things being equal, the idea of Bob Orci or some expression of the KO partnership directing the third film is actually pretty damn exciting. Orci clearly loves Trek and knows his way around expensive effects films. The IDW work has been nuanced and his presence on this site a real blessing.

4. If the little imp doesn’t set Trek free for another director, the combination of directing Star Wars and holding up Star Trek will turn the geek intelligentsia against JJ.

Come on, people! I know I’m not alone, and now that JJ’s out – it’s time to speak.

Keenser was a ‘Jar Jar.’ He’s a ‘Cousin Oliver.’ He’s a f ‘Scrappy-Doo.’

In any kind of just and moral universe, boborci will either take responsibility for Keenser or become a witness for the prosecution against the individual responsible.

Funny thing about Keenser: he made me realize what a complicated and empathetic character Wesley Crusher was. In retrospect, the poor kid was way over his head, a pawn in his mom’s weird relationship with Picard, and is such a galactic nerd that I can’t help liking him 25 years later. We thought Wesley was a Cousin Oliver, but WW turned out to be a real dude, an Original Geekster. I may watch Wesley’s episodes in the rainbow unitard through my fingers, but WW had a level of sincerity that was evident in STAND BY ME, and he brought it to nearly every episode.

Keenser on the other hand will rot like soft fruit. Star Trek went forty proud years without a comedic muppet–he denim minidress of slutty/insecure science fiction. Thanks JJ.

Seriously, Keenser was a “Jar-Jar”…wow, really? Love that melodrama comin from ya. Keenser was not an issue in the fim. He didn’t detract nor did he enhance. He was simple another unique alien life form.

Wesley Crusher did far more damage then Keener did. Keenser was in, what..like 2 minutes of total film footage…he had ZERO lines.

Seriously…I’m beginning to understand why JJ would wanna get far away from the Trek fan base. While I thought saying one thing and doing another was lacking in integrity, dealing with overly dramatic, my way or the highway Trek fan boy tools is enough for anyone to wanna “jump ship”

Shatner said “Get a life”…how appropriate based on some of these comments.

I’m pretty sure if Into Darkness makes a ton of bank, Paramount won’t indulge JJ and will want a film in 2-3 years. Paramount was making alot of money on the films made between “1 and 2″ but this is different. He’ll be making money for Disney, so Paramount won’t be so gracious with 3.

I’m hoping they can pull of a good stunt and get someone like Christopher Nolan or even Sam Mendez to direct 3….I could see a great film being done by Quinten Tarrintino as well.

If only he had made the same comment out of respect for Trek and its fans. Oh well – we’ll just have to wait and see if he delays Star Wars for any other pet projects. Disney must have a finished script as we know he doesnt take directing assignments without one.

It’s nice that he’s earned himself the chance to take on something he really cares about but it’s understandable that it makes people worry about the future of the Star Trek movies, particularly with the 50th anniversary on the horizon. I guess if all goes well it means a 3rd film from Bad Robot in 2016, just with a new director. Otherwise, 2018 here we come

Keenser was in what, 5 minutes of the movie? Let it go, people. I’d much rather have Keenser than that kid from Insurrection. At least he was an alien alien, and not a human with a paper plate stapled to his forehead.

Well, i guess there EXISTS a sufficient amount of money to buy yor secrecy plan about jumping ship in the middle of the ocean, but it’s cool leaving the fans speculate about the STID villain, the plot or any other detail concerning the movie for months because you’re too secretive about it and you don’t want to spoil it and you want the audience to find out at the right moment (laughing tons over here, sorry).

Yes, very convergent, very appropriate. Indicative of one’s respect for the audience, the final and more critical judge of one’s project.

I agree with the speculation that if STID pulls major coin, Paramount will not sit around waiting for JJ to finish ep.7, especially knowing his propensity to miss launch deadlines.

A successful film in North America and internationally will keep all stakeholders (including Bad Robot) hungry for more. Also, as we move closer and closer to opening night, the STID marketing machine will head into full swing, and we will all forget about Star Wars until the final dollars are counted. Then we’ll have director speculation, just as we’ve had with SW7 (Favreau? Bird? Singer? etc.). All will be well.

@1245…thats IF this film manages to pull in some coin. It will have some tough competetion from Iron Man (2 weeks before, but still, those films make some coin) and Fast and Furious 6 (if given a choice of Trek or Fast..the mindless masses will choose the film with fast cars)…

So, we could be looking at a film that makes the same amount or less then the last…the lack of marketing can and might play a factor into that.

I see the Cumberbatch Factor as being instrumental in getting a higher international turnout. He has instant recognition across Europe and Asia, and he brings in female filmgoers. In fact, whereas ST09 was a bunch of unknown young actors + Simon Pegg, Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy, in STID, they are all now quite well-known.

My hunch is that Star Trek will be alive and well come the end of 2013.

#1247 – “So, we could be looking at a film that makes the same amount or less then the last…the lack of marketing can and might play a factor into that.”

First, there’s been no ‘lack of marketing’ for STID, and there’s no reason to think there will be a lack of marketing. Second, you’re right, we could be looking at a film that makes less, or the same, or more.

Enough with the pointless prognostications! STID is alive and well, on schedule, with marketing on schedule, and nothing to even remotely suggest that your prediction is right.

That’s fine. But you and everyone else should know he’s still a factor in the movie timetables. Moonves gave Paramount 18 months to get the ball rolling when he got the Trek rights. I doubt he’ll wait 7 years.

Iron Man is released more or less 4 weeks before Star Trek Into Darkness and Man Of Steel is released just under 4 weeks after Star Trek Into Darkness…

Iron Man 3: 24th April international release date
Star Trek Into Darkness: 17th May
Man of Steel: 14th June

Plenty of room for Star Trek to make possibly its first billion dollar movie at the box office and don’t be so sure labelling every mainstream movie goer with the same brush, I wouldn’t be so sure that they’d rather go watch the F&F movie over Trek…. Not to mention all those Wars fans going to see Trek now to find out if Abrams will be worth it.

I’m glad this is true. JJ has consistently described himself as more of a Star Wars fan and Trek 11 was essentially Star Wars with Trek names. The Star Wars films now have an excellent and enthusiastic director in Abrams, someone who can do that franchise justice. Now if only Star Trek can be so lucky.

And no, I am not a fan of Trek 11. It plays like a parody of the franchise, a mean-spirited one that uses narrative shortcuts and pretty lights to stroke the egos of jaded/nostalgic fans who want things to be a certain way no matter how it comes to be. Celebrating a cartoonishly high and genocidal death toll (Vulcan, Romulus, etc.) and giving a cheating punk command of the Federation’s pride and joy does not a good Trek make.

Excusing it all just because it made serious bank is worse. By this standard Transformers is the better franchise.

You know what? Since bank is all that matters, Michael Bay should be pulled to direct Trek. He’s playing with giant robots right now, but the right offer…

@ 1256…please refer to comment 1236 in regards to that overly dramatic fan boy stuff…it’s obnoxious. The last film was not a parody of what came before. You want parody, go watch Insurrection and Nemesis. Data a floatation device…big Klingon zits, a late 1990’s PC joy stick piloting the Enterprise, a “picard clone” a dune buggy that has it’s own shuttlecraft…TNG Seasons 1-2, most of Voyage and Enterprise….those are parodies of the worse type.

Sure they took some creative liberties, but everyone’s favorite film, Trek 2, established that Kirk was rewarded for…you guessed it..CHEATING. This “alternate” Kirk just misses the parental guidence that his father provided, but the personality seeds of the “alternate” Kirk were in the Shatner Kirk LONG before Trek 11.

Blowing up Vulcan? Brilliant. Provides some interesting ideas for future UNIQUE stories. It was a ballsy risk considering how Trek fans are known to be quite dramatic over such fictional events. Also takes Trek in a different direction then the politically correct nonsensical society that was created in TNG.

Don’t get me started on the “narrative shortcuts” in regards to the character ages and promotions. Fans here would have b!tched and moaned if it took 3 movies and 8+ years to get Kirk and Spock and the rest on the bridge. I’m glad they spared us the “Anakin to Vader” garbage of the prequel trilogy (which could have resolved that one in 1 film or a film and a half)…

It’s ultra fan boys like some here on why this whole “alternate universe” crap was created in the first place. A total reboot would have caused some to jump off bridges and declare their DVD’s to be “obsolete because they don’t exist anymore!!! THE HORROR!!”

With Iron Man coming out just before and Supes coming out just after, there is absolutely NO WAY that STID makes a billion dollars. None. Not gonna happen.

Iron Man might under perform and it will probably out pace STID. And I get the feeling that Supes might just eat everyone’s lunch at the BO.

With JJ gone I predict he abandons Trek in all but the most cursory of positions. Also with all of this talk about how STID is going to be some sort of tear jerking event, then someone important is going to die, since that was one of JJ’s reasons to set it in the AU: so that nobody’s future could be predicted. I also prognosticate that it might mean that movie 3 (if it happens) could be a push of the old “reset” button. Ya’ know, in order to bring back from the dead one of our heroes that isn’t supposed to die. Because we know he’s not dead in the Prime timeline. Of course he may no longer “reside” in the Prime timeline. Because there are two of him in this AU. And his planet has been blowed up and he wants to fix it. And go home. To the Prime timeline.

@1260..no, his types will attend the movie. Secretly they will love it and download the bootleg copy the minute it’s posted online. Then they will go on Trekmovie and complain about the film and how JJ “took advantage” of their childhood memories and crapped all over the good name of Star Trek.

News flash, the “good name” of Star Trek was dragged thru the mud by years of nonsense and political correctness…all JJ’s films have done is give the franchise a fighthing chance to survive and gain some new fans.

@1262..naw, I don’t see the “pointed eared one” dying in this film…maybe “the good captain” or “red shirted ensign in the preview”…but that’s about it….or someone won’t get to attend that future meeting on Talos.

I know this is a long shot, but is there ANY POSSIBLE WAY you guys can get ahold of “The X-Files” and help finish that story? Seriously, 9 seasons and 2 movies and they still have not concluded that story. One of the biggest shames outside of the fact that Crusade was supposed to resolve missing plot threads from B5…that worked out well.

Any time I read a post from one of the “dramatic ones” in regards to how Trek 11 and Into Darkness (despite not being released yet) made a mockery of Star Trek..I can’t help but summon the voice of “The Comic Book Guy” from the Simpsons and image him typing and reading those comments.

It’s my understanding that only the visual effects of ST:TMP were shot in 65mm (70mm) using the VistaVision camera — also known as the Dykstraflex camera. This is what Apogee (at least) used for their work on the film.

Either way. I still think greenblood would want to do something to prevent his ENTIRE CIVILIZATION AND HOME PLANET from being destroyed. I don’t think wheels get’s offed because there just isn’t enough emotional attachment to him from any but the most hard core fans. Anyone outside the trifecta would have to die in multiples. Scotty and Sulu, or Uhura and Chekov and Keenser, or other such combinations.

Kirk dies and Prime Spock will want to fix it. Young Spock dies and obviously Old Spock will find that illogical. And want to fix it.

In any case I think JJ is done with Trek. My hope is for a return to TV. In the Prime universe.

@1273…he has been trying, but Fox has not been willing to green light a 3rd movie.

I felt that the story really came to an end with that 2 parter in Season 6. That should have been the end of The X-Files on TV….but they had to go further and the season finale talked about the pending invasion and there was supposed to be a film last year….but Fox screwed that up with the lack of support for the last film.

One last film to end it all is needed to fix the disaster of seasons 7-9

“One last film to end it all is needed to fix the disaster of seasons 7-9″

As a TNG fan, this would be my hope for a TNG movie. Just a proper send off. Have Q come back around one last time to test the crew and humanity. Make it big. Make it fun. Make it thought provoking. And make it without an adversary bent on revenge/domination/whatever.

@1275..you sound like one of those Wars fans that was not even alive when the original trilogy was in theaters. That crap on TV and in theaters now does not even come close to passing for what Star Wars used to be…besides, Star Wars was at its best when Star Trek was at its best…so stop with the “Wars is going to kill Trek” nonsense…the only thing Wars has killed lately has been it’s own fan base with the bile being released by Lucas.

Episode 7 will be nothing more than a fanboys wildest dream to make a Star Wars movie and a chance for Disney to sell more Star Wars toys, and lets face it Disney had to look to Star Trek for its director… Star Wars is hardly going to be the film of the decade, Avengers 2 will wipe the floor with Star Wars.

@ 1278…I would have liked that as well. I was the biggest TNG fan, I loathed Generations (they killed the good Captain…you don’t do that) but I felt they deserved a better send off then what they got. Even TOS got a better send off after doing Trek 5.

@1279..I enjoyed the 2nd movie, except for Scully. She didn’t seem well written and was not the same strong woman from the show. First she pulls Mulder into that crap and gets him involved in that stuff once again, then she complains because HE’S MULDER (obsessed with the case, unable to get over Samantha)…

Yeah, for a come back film, they should have done the alien invasion story…even brought back Cancer Man (alien human hybrid clone..that was my theory on him in the later parts of the show)…

Does anyone think now it seems that maybe JJ Abrams may not hit the 2015 release Disney wanted for SW, that we may see Abrams do another Star Trek movie before he begins on Star Wars? Possibly for a 2016 release with Star Wars being released in 2017?

But it didn’t end the TNG era. It just ended the TV series. And then we got another good movie, two average episodes on the big screen, and something awful, which, unfortunately, was the last thing we all saw.

It’s OK for people to like NuTrek. It’s OK for people to like Star Wars. And it’s OK for me to want a better send off.

@1283…Wars 7 will make alot of money, I think it could even make Avengers level loot.

I admire JJ Abrams and his crew (especially Bob Orci) for taking Trek in that direction. They have set out to make Trek a big franchise and I think over time, it can pull in that type of dollar (not as high, but good enough)..as long as it does not retread back into “classic” trek mode just to appease fans. Having a film in which Kirk and Spock set out to find the Holy Grail or Search for God will only drive the audience away…unless they hire an archeologist named Jones….

The mistake of the TNG movie era was not capitalizing on the Dominion War plot from DS9. They could have made a wicked movie about the horrors of war in such a way that TV can’t….and it could have had some DS9 crossovers. Instead we got the crapsicle films of Insurrection and Nemesis (insurrection being a terrible remake of “Omega Glory” with an idiotic group of plastic surgery obsessed mafioso and the ever so bad attempt to remake Wrath of Khan and mix in some Attack of the Clones)

I understand, I’m just saying it’s not going to happen. I love TNG. I too was disappointed in Insurrection and Nemesis (Insurrection being the worse of the two, IMHO). But it’s done, and we may as well get used to that. Unless we’re talking about a reboot 15 years from now.

I read an article on IGN about that possiblity….I don’t think that paramount is willing to wait on him to finish Star Wars and his other “speilberg homage” films to direct Trek 3 in 2018-2020…then the actors would be getting old enough to do a reboot of the movie era adventures…

The faster that folks realize that Star Trek will NEVER go back to being what it was in the TNG era (TNG-Enterprise) the better off they will be. If Trek gets back on TV it will likely be an action based show similar to TOS then anything Trek was in the TNG Era.

@ Sean, I do realise Avengers is made by Marvel and Disney so the two wont be in direct competition but if they are to be released in the same year then I would think Avengers would make more money. Regardless of this being Star Wars, I think Superheroes have a bigger attraction to people who aren’t fanboys of either and aren’t bothered about anything but being entertained at the movies. Personally I won’t be going to see Star Wars simply because that universe hasn’t ever really appealed to me but I’ll be first in line to see Avengers 2. Marvel have just been amazing I think at capturing the spirit of each of their superheroes on screen.

I really hated what ILM did to the E model for Star Trek 2. As you may know, the model had a subtle pearlescent finish originally, but because ILM shot against blue instead of black (as Trumbull did), they were getting a lot of blue spill on the model. Their “solution” was to spray the model with dullcote.

@1295…yeah, and that before 5, they found out that a Universal Studio’s employee sprayed one ENTIRE side matte grey to block out blue spill for some special they did on movie fx. Then ILM did another paint job on the model for 6 that further destroyed the pearlescent finish of the ship.

I live near Seattle so I thought about taking a trip up to the Sci-Fi Museum to check the ship out in person.

I don’t know about that. Avengers was a mediocre film at best that doesn’t have anywhere near the iconic status that the original Star Wars films do. There will be a media frenzy built up around Epiosde VII like nothing we have ever seen before.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Avengers 2 box office drops off significantly from part 1.

a) JJ Abrams has signed on to direct ONE movie – Star Wars Episode VII

b) Paramount has said that JJ Abrams will be involved with the Star Trek franchise, being producer, of any third movie, at the VERY LEAST.

Therefore, JJ Abrams has not left anything/anyone. As for directing, JJ Abrams decides on whether to direct a movie or not on a case by case, script by script, movie by movie basis. There was/is never any guarantee that JJ Abrams will direct anything. However, it is clear that he will remain a Star Trek producer, which is what he has been all along.

While I agree with the DS9 comment (DS9 was awesome and about as close to TOS as you can get)..TNG was too politically correct and plot resolutions depended on technology rather then ingenuity. The Enterprise was more like the Love Boat in space. It was weak as crap half the time and looked ugly as sin. Good show, better then Voyager and Enterprise, but not as good as the Original..although Season 3 was pretty terrible most the time…

# 1263. Robman007 – January 28, 2013 “@1260..no, his types will attend the movie. Secretly they will love it and download the bootleg copy the minute it’s posted online. Then they will go on Trekmovie and complain about the film and how JJ “took advantage” of their childhood memories and crapped all over the good name of Star Trek. News flash, the “good name” of Star Trek was dragged thru the mud by years of nonsense and political correctness…all JJ’s films have done is give the franchise a fighthing chance to survive and gain some new fans.”

Well said, Roboman. I agree. And it’s interesting, isn’t it, how the great “LaForge_To_Bridge” is too much of a wuss apparently to respond and defend himself here. I guess he simply dropped his little bomb here and then went back to re watching his TNG Season 1 Blu-Ray collection for the 27th time. LOL

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Avengers 2 box office drops off significantly from part 1.”

Back in the day, I’d agree with you…but with today’s dense as can be youth, Avengers 2 will make a ton more money then Star Wars 7. Star Wars will require kids to think, Avengers (even the first) did not. The lead in films did and were good flicks (at least the Iron Man ones were), but Avengers was so mindless that I thought Michael Bay was involved.

I hope that someone from Bad Robot get the Chance to Direct Star Trek 3 if it happens, which i hope it does, Bad Robot is in a contract for 3 movies, it doesn’t mean JJ has to Direct all 3 and Parmount will keep trek with who ever has it making the most money for it though the Star Trek Name, you have to remember fans to Parmount are a Source of Income but they have to make a Healthy Profit from General audances so they will use Big names like JJ and Bad Robot to make new Trek that a new Generation of movie goers will Emrace, the days of old trek might work for fans who have been here all along but to get new Trek we also have to get a new fan base.

I dunno, I think Star Wars will do well but I think it’s rep isn’t as it used to be. Sure the fans will be there lining up, lightsabers in hand but the prequel trilogy did nothing to help the franchise and since then its been surviving on a kids cartoon and toy sales as well as constant tweaking from Lucas on DVD and blu ray releases.

Robman007 – I was being hyperbolic about Keenser, but he does suck and it is a Scrappy Doo/Cousin Oliver pathetic move on JJ’s part. The presence of Keenser compromises Pegg’s performance, reducing him to Dennis the Menace-style exclamations. [Shudder]

I’ll grant you that he didn’t shit the bed like Jar Jar. The TNG movies are pathetic, beneath commentary. And I still maintain that Trek never stooped to cute sidekick until ST09.

Though Christopher Nolan is an overused citation, I’d be most excited by that type of name coming on board Star Trek… someone like Duncan Jones. Plan on Adam Goodman naming someone safe, like Stephen Sommers or Joe Johnston.

#1305. Yea, DS9 was great because they actually did stuff and behaved like real humans — just like in the TOS — whereas TNG was typically like something a UN focus group would have come up with had they been asked to define a Trek series.

@1306…yeah, someone got pissy about that “plot detail”….last time I checked Wrath of Khan made it a plot point to show that Kirk got by for years by simply pulling a trick here and there and “cheating” his way past death, all while patting himself on the back and laughing his way into the next adventure…identical to the behavior pattern of “nu” Kirk.

I’ll reserve my judgement on Keenser until these films are done. He could do something good for the story like save the ship, or save scotty…or he could just continue to get into trouble for climbing up stuff…either way, give him something great to do or replace him with Nick Frost

1303
a) JJ Abrams has signed on to direct ONE movie – Star Wars Episode VII

b) Paramount has said that JJ Abrams will be involved with the Star Trek franchise, being producer, of any third movie, at the VERY LEAST.

Therefore, JJ Abrams has not left anything/anyone. As for directing, JJ Abrams decides on whether to direct a movie or not on a case by case, script by script, movie by movie basis. There was/is never any guarantee that JJ Abrams will direct anything. However, it is clear that he will remain a Star Trek producer, which is what he has been all along.

——————————————————————————————————

Well said!

——————————————————————————————————

@1304

I think it depends on what Star Trek you grew up on, I grew up on TNG and DS9 and I felt that both of them reflected the eras they were made in, TNG had that 80’s vibe and DS9 that 90’s vibe.

1315…very true. Very true. He does get cool points…dude got to make out with Ashley Judd. Can’t hate on that….

TNG was full of side kicks. Troi was a side kick in the first few years (and there just to c**k-block the good commander) and Wesley was there to remind us that this Trek was not TOS Trek.

The best “side kick” was Nog…before he joined Star Fleet. That conversation he had during the “double date” that he and Jake went on with that girl from Saved by the Bell and her friend…priceless and one of the greatest set of lines in all of Trek. Captain Kirk would have been proud.

My point being there’s no reason they won’t make a good Star Wars movie, given the nice job they’ve done with the Marvel stuff. In fact, as derided as John Carter was, I think it shows they could definitely do a decent SW movie.

@1318..That’s true….I grew up with TOS (not when it aired…I was not around until a few months before Khan), but I’ve always been partial to the good Captain Kirk and his trusty pal Spock then anything…and I loved DS9 cause they repected TOS instead of changing it (TNG made klingons honorable, gave Romulans headridges and turned the Enterprise from a bad mofo ship to the weak love boat)….

#1321. Plus, the bar was set so low by the prequels that it would be hard for JJ to not be able to improve on that just by showing up and going through his usual best practices, including casting good actors — something that Lucas completely dropped the ball on for the prequels.

Ok… You are the reason that certain medications were created. You do realize how stupid your statement is don’t you? STID comes out this year, in 4 months time, 4 MONTHS!!! Ep. VII comes out 2 years later. So how exactly does it trounce STID?? I would tell you to do the math, but I have a sinking feeling that coherent thought is not a strong suit with you.

Anyways…

I have to admit I don’t particularly care whether J.J. Abrams is directing SW or not, or if he ever directs another ST film. I wish him well in his new ventures and I thank him and Bad Robot for bringing us ST, but he isn’t the reason I’m going to see STID come May. He’s not the star of movie, and while the director of course is a huge part of the process, he/she is just part of the creative team. I am one of those people who really doesn’t take much notice of who directs what. It’s not my main motivation for seeing a movie.

Nope, I’m going to see STID because I want to see my heroes onscreen once again. I want to see Kirk, Spock and Bones and the rest of the crew (Uhura, Scotty, Sulu and Chekov) and of course the beloved Enterprise continue to boldly go. Almost 50 years, wow, what a legacy! Remember, ST was instrumental in some way for SW, BSG etc… And ST will be celebrated for years to come. Us fans made sure of that all those years ago and to this day.

Don’t get me wrong, I like SW, I do. I remember gasping along with the audience when Darth Vader spoke those immortal lines to Luke in Empire Strikes Back. Or when Hans Solo was put into Carbonite…yikes! But I cried during TWOK, my heart broke for Spock and Kirk and even now I will tear up watching Spock’s death. The ST universe and the characters within it, are to me, what the future can aspire to (and has already, how many inventions that we use now can trace their origins back to ST?) ST feels more real, whereas SW is darn good whomping fun to watch, but it doesn’t challenge me. ST at its best, holds a mirror up to society and makes us think, it makes us challenge our ideas and outlook. It has longevity and substance. SW is stylish, baby! And I’ll probably go and see the new movie. But in all honesty, I will take substance over style any day.

@1325, Well said, The Walking Phobia. You’ve put into words how I feel about Trek versus SW. The Empire Strikes Back was the only SW movie that I would rate as good as some of the best Trek movies — it is the only SW movie that really got to me personally.

@1323 “Plus, the bar was set so low by the prequels that it would be hard for JJ to not be able to improve on that just by showing up and going through his usual best practices, including casting good actors — something that Lucas completely dropped the ball on for the prequels.”

Eps IV, V & VI were pure, splendid eye/ear-candy, and as a teenager, I happily left my brain at the door of the cinema for each one. Joseph Campbell and the ‘hero’s journey’ was shit we all read about later, and thought “who cares?” Just like most fans.

I, II & III made me think Lucas had jumped the shark, imbuing the films with more offensive racism than anything Tarantino has done, as well as a psycho mass murderer of children and adults who was supposed to be the guy ‘redeemed’ by the end of ‘Jedi.’ Epic Fail.

I’d do anything to be that 13 year old who caught “A New Hope” in 1977 again. What a ride.

I agree with you MJ :-) Though I did go and see Return of the Jedi a few times, but that was more my crush on Harrison Ford rather than it being a SW film. Trust me, Raiders of the Lost Ark made a mint off of me because of that too! LOL

Naa, this lady is counting down to May 17th, saving her pennies so she can buy the big popcorn and gulpy drink and wait for the magic to unfold. :-)

Crusher was not a sidekick and he wasn’t cute. He was earnest and weak, never funny. He was discomfiting in many ways, but his presence was nothing like the ‘Cousin Oliver/Scrappy Doo Maneuver,’ whereby a smaller, cuter character is consistently used for ‘aw shucks’ comic relief.

The typical response to a Wesley scene in TNG was not a giggle or an ‘aw shucks,’ — it was to be embarrassed for everyone involved and the desire to scratch ones own eyes out in the Traveller episodes.

Roddenberry’s whole idea of a starship with a city attached to it was abandoned. The ship hardly ever separated. The civilians were never explored meaningfully. Wesley was the embodiment of that failed concept. Totally different from the Scrappy Doo/Artoo/Keenser thing.

As a movie fan in general, I happen to like BOTH franchises…even though there’s been some awful moments/dialogue in both of them at times.

Although J.J. wasn’t on my personal list of hoped-for directors for the next Star Wars movie, I’m confident he may turn out something that looks good. I just hope his design choices are better than some of those he opted for on his 1st Trek reboot.

But I’ve just realised the one big thing that would really spoil both his franchise efforts for me – if he ends up casting fellow Star Wars fan Simon Pegg as a character that is not heavily disguised in make-up… Seeing nu-‘Scotty’ in J.J.’s nu-Wars movie too would end ‘taking me out’ of both his sci-fi franchises quicker than Jar Jar and Keenser ever did! Sorry Simon, but seeing you in BOTH of these sagas would seem jarring and ridiculous to me.

@1261 (Rodman007) And let’s not forget TOS Season 3, and a few episodes from Seasons 1 and 2. I consider Insurrection to be FAR WORSE than Nemesis. Bringing up examples of previous idiocy within the franchise’s past does not absolve or excuse Trek 11 of its own idiocies, which at present I care about more since the franchise currently revolves around this movie.

I really don’t care about creative liberties taken. I didn’t really care what the Enterprise looked like or other visual differences and they they didn’t have to justify any changes to me with time-traveling alternative universe bullsh*t. I get it. I know what it takes to look cool to outsiders/non-nerds/everybody else (I just don’t care, the same way they feel about me). Using a genre trope (time-travel/alternate universe) to telegraph the obliteration of 40+ years of franchise history is cynical, and insulting. Just do it and be done with it. Batman made no apologies and look at how well that worked out.

Anyway, The Wrath of Khan portrayed the KM test as a desperate situation that Kirk went above and beyond to win the no-win test. Cheating was the best answer. He wouldn’t give up, long after other cadets did. It’s just that the best answer was to cheat. Kirkwad (Trek11) just does it (we never see how) just to show the world how awesome he is. The same film also shows Kirk ignoring or forgetting directives that could save lives in battle. Whatever.

You know what would have been brilliant AND ballsy? Killing one of the seven (Uhura, Chekov, Sulu or Scott), or hell, even one of the three (Kirk, Spock or McCoy). It would have provided some interesting ideas for future UNIQUE stories. It would have been a ballsy risk considering how Trek fans are known to be quite dramatic over such fictional events AND characters. It also would have taken Trek in a different direction then the politically correct (among fans/studio-heads/other suits) nonsensical template of immortal crew + expendable redshirts + semi-dangerous ship with famous name that was created in TOS and copied ad-infinitum in subsequent spinoffs.

TNG showed (well tried to) a humanity that curbed its most dangerous and self-destructive impulses and strove to better themselves as a civilization, as a species. Why is this uncool? Why is this mocked? Why is it that any display and celebration of good human virtues are mocked and derided by modern media (and then lavishly praised).

Instead Vulcan bites it as a cop out, a way for the Supreme Court to show how “dangerous” their AU is. It’s a bird-flip to older fans, because they risk something precious to fans without truly risking anything deemed important to the larger audience base (the brand name of Kirk + Enterprise and the the other people). Why not blow up Earth? That was supposed to be where the real stakes are. So the bad guy gets everything he wants, and Old Spock (who swung around a star for some whales) couldn’t really give a damn. Yet he waves a magic wand and *poofs* Kirk and Scotty to the Enterprise because the Supreme Court couldn’t think of a better way to put them there. This is after being LET GO RIGHT AFTER CAPTURE by a man who obsessed over him for 20+ years (wouldn’t Nero’s bridge have been a better place to see Vulcan’s destruction? So he can watch Spock’s his anguish?).

There are too many examples of shortcuts like that in this film and that bothers me.

And that’s the rub. Trek11 started off so well (the opening was awesome, and a tearjerker, despite the whole kids on starship thing – have we have learned nothing from TNG). Spock’s childhood and his dad were awesome. The special effects were cool. But bullshit is bullshit no matter when it appears or how shiny it is.

I don’t think JJ is a bad filmmaker. I just think he’s better for Star Wars. That’s where his storytelling sensibilities lie. And finally, we’ll get a great Star Wars movie (I hope, the best laid plans…). I just don’t think he was right for Trek.

But it doesn’t matter. Trek11 made bank. But if that’s all that matters shoot for the moon and go for James Cameron, Spielberg, Bay, etc.?

I am not Roberto Orci, but I’m posting this as proof that anyone can post with the name “boborci”. TrekMovie.com and Anthony need to confirm and perhaps prohibited the use of the boborci username from those that are not Orci himself.

That being said, Mr. Orci, I greatly appreciate that you take your time to post with us. I look forward to you and the supreme court giving us a Star Trek 3… if the Force is with us. ;)

I have to say that I agree with most of what you said. I’m just more of a TNG apologist.

I love Star Wars and I think JJ is a perfect fit. I don’t think Trek was his thing and to me it sorta showed.

And I absolutely do hope that one of the trifecta bites it in STID. You want “edgy”? You want “controversy”? You want “pathos”? You want some buzz in the fanbase? Then nut-up and kill off a main character. You already (effectively) killed off two civilizations.

#1341 – It really more of the site being updated and monitored. It seems these forums goes to the crapper when its not because then we have people who have never posted in here before be one time posters when Anthony and the staff take these month long breaks which now seem like that the new SOP. Anthony would automatically ban a fake BobOrci because he can verify who the real BobOrci is.

Craiger, What Anthony needs to do is create a unique sign-in for Bob to prevent any imposters posting under that name.
And there always should be someone moderating when the Anthony is away or something.

If you don’t like LaForge_To_Bridge why don’t you just click his name and leave a post on his wordpress blog? That way you could debate on his site. I don’t happen to think his post above was too far off base. Does that make me a target for villification? I don’t think JJ’s a bad film maker either. I just think his style is better suited for Star Wars. His writers, on the other hand, leave me a bit cold.

Don’t allow yourself to be bullied. By equal measure, don’t bully anybody else. But I think everyone should be able to post their opinion, and have it discussed or debated rationally. Sometimes these comments can get heated and sometimes idiots need to be slapped down. But if someone is stating their point coherently it shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.

I say at the main page you sign in with your email and password. However I wonder if that would be worth it with this site not being updated that much anymore. It doesn’t even seem like Anthony cares about running this site anymore since it looks like he has moved on to other projects, like being the creative consultant on that Star Trek Into Darkness Prequel Comic. I am not jealous of that I think its cool the success he has gotten with this site but if he doesn’t care about running it full time anymore he should let us know that.

We need to be able to all register here so that there can be no sock-puppets anymore.

I am sick of these malcontents, who lose their audience here because of their crap opinions, who then just reinvent themselves in a new name to keep up their negativity and nonsense. . LaForge_To_Bridge is just the latest of these losers.

And this is what I was afraid of… I did an internet search for Star Trek and all I got were articles about JJ directing Star Wars and the only mention in those articles about Star Trek was “and what about Star Trek 3? JJ will stay on as Producer.” WTF??? JJ I’ve loved your work since Felicity and this has nothing to do you or your creative genius but all of this puts a bad taste in my mouth. I get it, you’ve been vocal about your genuine love for Star Wars for a VERY long time. I never expected you to show up with Trek09 being a fan of the series. You (or any director for that matter) doesn’t have to. You grew to understand it and appreciate it for the legacy that it has mantained for over 40years. But now, on top of crossing over to that Galaxy far far away, any press event done for Into Darkness is going to be bombarded with questions not about Trek but about Star Wars. Every red carpet, every television or print interview is going to press you so hard on Star Wars while leaving Trek as an after thought. That’s what pisses me off. I have no issues what-so-ever with JJ directing Star Wars. It’s the thing that he’s loved and inspired for..well..forever. He out of every other director out there deserved the job and I know he’s going to do a hell of a job. But I’m sick and tired of Trek taking a back seat and ALREADY it’s happening. Again, JJ I love you and work and I’m even a massive Star Wars fan but dude you just broke this little Trekkie’s heart.

If you go to his Worldpress Blog site, you will notice that their is NO ACTIVITY OR POSTS THERE.

This is just a very clever diversion by another sockpuppet here. If that blog site had real posts and activity, you might have a point, but given it is a shell/fake site, this only confirms that this is all a sham.

It became the most popular Star Trek movie in the history of the franchise.

My point being that JJ himself stated that one of the reasons for going the “AU route” was to add the element of danger and unpredictability to stories where the audience knew the main characters were in no real danger. I’m just suggesting that it be put to practice. Of course if Cumberbatch turns out to be Khan then all of that talk about setting NuTrek in the AU so that new stories could be told AND the element of danger was in play was just that. Talk.

I make no bones about it: I don’t like the AU concept. I never have. What works for me is to kill a main character and then have the whole thing get reset just to bring the main character back. In the Prime timeline.

But maybe that’s just me. Different strokes and all. Hey, what do I know. Some people like 1933 King Kong. Some like Dino de Laurentis’ 70’s man in a monkey suit King Kong. And some prefer PJ’s King Kong. Don’t make them bad people.

THX – They either had to do the AU or truly reboot it because you were never going to see the Enterprise look the way it did in TOS. I think doing the AU was a to show how the Enterprise got updated from TOS. I think Bob once said that when the shuttles were leaving the Kelvin they took scans of the Narada and backward engineered the Narada’s technology.

Me too Ahmed. I am not complaining about Trekmovie I just care about getting it back to its glory days which doesn’t some possible anymore. We didn’t even have a chat with JJ, Bob and crew from the STID set like we did last time with ST 09. We don’t even chat with people involved with Trek anymore because they don’t even hang out here anymore, except for Bob.

@1345. (K-7) I’m not Captain Neil. I don’t even know who he is. I read this blog from time to time and started posting on something that really grabbed my interest. I am stating (and defending) an opinion. It’s in the minority, that’s fine. Doesn’t invalidate it, make it wrong, or right. Won’t stop me from sharing.

Besides, you don’t have to kill off Romulus or Vulcan because you don’t want the Enterprise to look like it did in the 60’s. There have been some darn nice examples of how a Constitution Class (i.e. “classic”) starship could look in HD. To my ears and eyes changes were made in order to put one’s own stamp on the franchise. Which is all fine.

I mean, to some extent I wanted to see something I recognized in JJ’s Trek and I just haven’t seen enough to be comfortable. The tone just wasn’t the same (again, to me) as TOS. I am fully aware that an obvious majority does not agree with me. It won’t stop me from proclaiming that all of you are wrong and I am right. (That last bit is a joke so don’t nobody get their panties in a bunch).

Besides, with all the dang DVD’s and Blurays I have plenty to occupy my time.

(1) Anthony briefly returns in October through December 2012 to “his old self,” with several articles and updates by him each week, and being generally very involved like he used to be — this site briefly thus coming close to what we loved in its old glory days.

(2) Based on #1, we’ve all seen the traffic and participation on this site increase significantly now — thus this site probably getting ten time the hits at least before Anthony reinvigorated it, and this has continued through now, even with Anthony on his extended leave again.

(3). Based on #2, the internet ad revenue that Anthony collects from this sites I would bet is 10 times the amount before he reinvigorated the site. Let’s say it had dropped to maybe $150 per month during the slow period last year — well now its $1500 per month.

You see where I am going with this. $1500 per month pays about half a typical monthly mortgage in SoCal.

Oh heck yeah! I’ll buy that, since I can’t really afford (both financially and relationship-wise) to purchase all of TNG on Blu. I have been hoping that there might be opportunities like this to become available. Maybe they can do something like those “Captain’s Logs” compilations, too.

MJ, so I guess what you are saying is maybe Anthony sees he can just make money off this site by the number of clicks its gets by us just chatting here and he doesn’t really need to update it that much because of that? If that is the case then he really isn’t sticking to this sites tagline anymore.

I agree with some of your points regarding Star Trek 2009, especially the parts you liked. The opening was great, and Vulcan was a place I wanted to spend more time on. Then they blew it up. :-) Let’s hope we get the positives of Vulcans in the future. After all, Roddenberry created them because humans too often let their emotions get in the way. Look, I liked the 2009 movie move than you. It’s not a perfect Star Trek movie but an entertaining and well produced film.

TNG at times gets attacked on this site. Yet it was a successful series. It was an evolution to the TOS. Abrams thought Star Trek was talky but there is no doubt that TNG WAS STAR TREK, not Star Wars. The Inner Light is a beloved episode of Star Trek. Throw in DS9’s The Visitor. TOS’s The City on the Edge of Forever. What made these shows beloved by Trekkers? They asked you to think. There was heart and intelligence. Rick Berman is a hated phrase around here. He did not create global warming, people. :-) But he did produce three successful series and helped to create DS9 and Voyager.

The Supreme Court wants to go deeper ala The Dark Knight. We’ll see. STID has a very good start with its discussion of the Prime Directive. I hope everybody including non-Trekkers think about the need for such a policy. Let me paraphrase Roger Ebert. Star Trek is about ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. Roddenberry wanted a show that was entertaining and also thought provoking. Link.

@1368. It’s up to AP how he chooses to run his site, just as it’s up to me if I choose to participate. The wife and I helped a friend moderate his site a few years back, and we had to stop as the level of childishness from the adults was just off the charts. It was driving my wife nuts, and gave me an appreication for what it takes to pull something like this off. If AP can make a few bucks off of this, more power to him. And for the next person who wants to mouth off about how ‘they’ would do this, go start your own site. I’d give the effort six weeks or so before you come to your senses on how difficult it is to be ringmaster of a three ring circus where everyone is bitching unendingly about anything and everything.

Look, if you want Abrams to direct Star Trek III, it’s going to take longer than the usual sequel. Think about the delay of STID because of Abrams’ Super 8. Star Trek III for 2020, And let’s face it, I believe that Abrams will put more attention to Star Wars than Star Trek. After all, he’s more of a Star Wars guy than Star Trek. He’s a big fan of Star Wars. It’s the bigger franchise.

If Abrams is too busy, there should be a new director for Star Trek III. How about Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek? :-) (QT did have a part in Bad Robot’s Alias and Star Trek was his favorite 2009 movie.) Just think of it. Klingons and Andorians in a Mexican standoff. Samuel L. Jackson playing a Klingon. Says to the Andorian, “Move a mother bleeping antenna and I’ll blow your blue bleeping head all over the place.” There might even be a discussion of replicated quarter pounders or whatever the Klingons use to say quarter pounder.

But seriously, Star Trek needs a new captain. I’m talking about a guy who will oversee Star Trek. Someone who understands it. Someone who will take it back to where it belongs. It’s a place where more sophisticated stories can be told. It’s TV. The guy I nominate is Bob Orci. He knows the difference between tranya and the green stuff Scotty has in his room. Bob knows why we loved the episode Arena so much. Hint to non-Trekkers. Action plus thought provoking morality questions. I believe Bob will lead Star Trek back to greatness.

I’ll never understand why some of you harp on Anthony so much. He owes his readership nothing–and the amount of money he makes from ad revenue is not only irrelevant to this discussion, but also no one’s business but Anthony. No one is forcing any of you to come here. If you hate the site’s current state so much, then do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave; the five or six of you won’t be missed.

I never said there was anything wrong with it, I am just attempting to determine why the site is the way it is today, and this conjecture of mine fits the data. I am not making a moral judgment here — just being real.

1373: “But seriously, Star Trek needs a new captain. I’m talking about a guy who will oversee Star Trek. Someone who understands it. Someone who will take it back to where it belongs. It’s a place where more sophisticated stories can be told. It’s TV. The guy I nominate is Bob Orci.”

Oh I nominate him too. Now when our votes actually count for something we’ll be in good shape.

And that presumes Bob would accept the nomination. He may want to be free of this nuttiness.

#1374 – Again we don’t hate this site we are just concerned about getting it back to it glory days when it first started. I don’t really care for the name you use to post on here and I am surprised Anthony hasn’t banned it.

@1378 a reset to the prime universe would be so messy. there’s just so much to keep up with and it was partially the reason the franchise was becoming bloated. the ships were poorer and poorer in design as were the costumes and stories. star trek is supposed to be advanced but to shoot so far into the future past tng era just becomes…too messy (if only because of prime universe cannon).

Has Bob Orci ever directed before? If not, I would like to see him either work as an Assistant Director, or at least get some directorial experience before taking the reins. But I also agree that he may be destined for that job, or another prominent role- bigger than his current role in the world of Star Trek.

LMAO style hilarious.
Get ready for delays, delays, delays and lame excuses, Star Wars fans. JJ Abrams is already talking about delaying the 2015 release date.
That means look for it in 2017.
We Star Trek fans have had to put up with this prima donna behavior since 2008, when the first Star Trek was supposed to be released. I guess it’s only fair that Star Wars fans get a taste of JJ’s recalcitrance to do what he was contracted to do.
Any director’s reputation would be sooooo tarnished if he/she pulled this sort of nonsense. Imagine if Steven Spielberg had pulled this crapola year after year….but I guess JJ Abrams is the Teflon director.

@1382. I would be Orci is killing himself right now that he didn’t get his feet wet doing a little film like Kurtzman did. Orci is my recommendation for the Directors seat on Trek 3 (I was the first person on Trekmovie.com to nominate/recommend Orci following the Lucas news last week), but I could see it going to Kurtzman for this “directors experience” reason.

Craiger & MJ. According to IMDB, Bob didn’t direct anything yet, not even TV episodes. Perhaps, he can start directing some of Hawaii Five-0 episodes & then ask Paramount to allow him to make Star Trek 3.

I doubt Disney dropped 4Bs on Lucas and who knows how muDch on Abrams only to tell JJ “Don’t bother aiming for the widest market imaginable;we’re not trying to break records here.”

Anything is possible, but I think Red Robot is going to be under tremendous pressure from both camps to GET IT OUT, GET IT OUT NOW come 2015.
#1262 THX-1138

Well, there is one way. Unlikely, but it has been done before: Paramount could bump the release date. However, if they are mulling over this option they are going to have to decide quick before The Super Bowl.

I believe Bob Orci was mistaken when he shot down a fan using inflation adjusted figures and then claiming their Trek was the number one grossing Trek movie….
I have no idea where he got his inflation figures, but mine are derived from using Box Office Mojo’s grosses for the Star Trek movies and the U. S. Government’s inflation index calculators, which puts Star Trek: The Motion Picture’s grosses worldwide at $489,471,787 and change adjusted versus Star Trek 2009 at $412,985,288……insofar as profitability at the theaters, TMP was likely also the winner calculating solely by 50% [gross minus theater fees] of adjusted gross minus alleged adjusted budget and adjusting those figures. It’s probably even worse than that since advertising wasn’t nearly as costly in 1979/1980 as it is today…
It’s all actually apples and oranges since the 2009 effort opened in 3849 theaters vs 689 for 1979/1980’s effort..

#1379: I really don’t care whether or not you like my screen-name since you’re a complete stranger whose opinion of me is absolutely irrelevant. Furthermore, there’s no reason whatsoever for Anthony to ban me because of that screen-name, since it’s not an offensive name and it violates no Terms of Service. It’s the name of a TV show. It would be like banning someone for having the screen-name DukesOfHazzard or BionicWoman. That you’d actually call for banning someone for having a screen-name based on a TV show says a lot about you… and none of what it says is positive.

Based on that MTV Interview link I found for you, I think it is more likely that Anthony is being swamped with media requests the world over for sound bites on the state of Trek fandom over Disney’s STAR WARS coup.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paramount PR unbeknownst to him are funneling some of it his way because they are getting fed up with all these questions publicizing Disney.

#1339 – “Anyway, The Wrath of Khan portrayed the KM test as a desperate situation that Kirk went above and beyond to win the no-win test. Cheating was the best answer. He wouldn’t give up, long after other cadets did. It’s just that the best answer was to cheat. Kirkwad (Trek11) just does it (we never see how) just to show the world how awesome he is.”

Both KM test simulations were taken by Starfleet cadets in their final year of training. The conditions were no different. If you had paid attention, Dr (Karl Urban) McCoy told James (Chris Pine) Kirk that no one had beaten the Kobyiashi Maru test and nobody was meant to. (CP) Kirk asked (KU) McCoy, “Doesn’t that bother you?” in a serious tone. (CP) Kirk had already sat the test twice and to sit the KM test for a third time had not been done before.

Therefore, how can you say that the conditions were different from what we were told about Kirk and KM test in TWOK? The fact is – they weren’t! Alt Kirk saw the test as being a cheat in itself. I guess you missed that bit as well. If this alt.Kirk only cheated on the test to show how awesome he was, then there is no reason to believe that the prime Kirk did not cheat for the very same reasons. Another aspect is while the two Kirk’s had different upbringings, they both decided to *cheat* on the same test. This leads one to believe that, (a) while growing up in different circumstances, they are still fundamentally the same person and/or (b) in both timelines, the test itself may well be, as (CP) Kirk described it, a cheat and both called it out.

BTW, prime Kirk (the older, more experienced and mature) often ignored the Prime Directive and other regulations if and when he deemed it necessary/OK and was sometimes challenged by Spock/McCoy on the decisions he made. Alt. Kirk did not ignore any prime directive because there was no prime directive in place. Vulcan needed Starfleet’s assistance. Starfleet vessel, the Enterprise, gave it.

I think the character of Kirk was written very well. You have to consider his age. He’s not acting any different from other young twenty-something folk I know. Especially considering his upbringing.

We’re witnessing the birth of the adult Captain Kirk. I’m betting he gets a bit more mature in the next film. At least, he better, because that’s what good writing would dictate. Kirk must become a real leader, and his friendships must become more solidified by the end of the film.

If they don’t do that, I’ll probably be ultimately disappointed with the film. But I think they’ll do it. Two films of him being a somewhat callow whelp might be too much for me, and hopefully it would be too much for Orci & co.

Bob, I don’t doubt you. I think the real story here is that Trek has finally recovered from the post-TMP box office slide owing to the fact that TMP, perceive by the masses to be boring, turned off an entire generation of potential new fans.

Shilliam, I do think the writers are heading Kirk into that maturity level that brings him closer to Prime Kirk when he became Captain of the Enterprise. Like you, I think they handled Kirk’s character just fine in ST 2009. As the trailer for STID shows, where Pike berates Kirk for having ‘not an ounce of humility’ and how that could seriously affect his crew, that Kirk is going to have to grow and mature and ‘earn’ the big chair. And Chris Pine has already stated in interviews about having to ‘earn’ the Captaincy in this new film. So I’m with you in that I don’t think Orci and Co. will regress Kirk’s character, it makes no sense and does a disservice to Kirk and ultimately the other characters too.

My post of mine has disappeared, while posts accusing other posters of being sockpuppets etc remain. My vanished post simply sought moderation because there appears to be an imposter or two now posting on this site as regular posters.

As I recall TMP was considered something along the lines of 2001:ASO, i.e. something to blow your mind in sight and sound for inflated ticket prices at the CINERAMADOME. It was very much appreciated among the young as a “trip” film. I believe that sensibility, being able to mellow-out and enjoy tripping for an extended period of time, has been lost in subsequent generations along with the optically blown up prints.

@1423. I think it is just the opposite. The opinion of it has improved over time, whereas it was not appreciated when it came out. I was around in 79 and saw it multiple times in the theater, so I am not just making this opinion up. People said it looked and sounded great, but was boring and missing the heart of the TV show.

“The new film, titled Interstellar, is said to be based on scientific theories developed by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist, gravitational physicist and astrophysicist at Caltech, the California Institute of Technology. Described as complex and multilayered, it will centre on a group of space explorers who travel through a wormhole.”

Indeed, and I suspect it might have been because the international market largely being ESL appreciated it more as an “art” film. Either that or the translations must have been bitchin’ dialogue changes that really punched it up?

Exverlobter says, “I seriously doubt that Star Wars is the “bigger franchise.
Until now, there are 6 Star Wars-films, and 11 Trek-films.
Until now, there is 1 animated Star Wars- TV series, but 6 Trek-series.”So what is the bigger franchise!”

This is what I hate about the Internet People post without any idea of what is true. What I meant about Star Wars being bigger is not the amount of films or TV series. By your definition, Charlie Chan is the bigger franchise since it has over 48 movies. Link. I’m talking money and that means box office. Box office means eyes on the screen.

So where does Star Trek stand to Star Wars as far as box office in terms of franchise movies? Star Wars is number three. Harry Potter is number one. James Bond is number two. Star Trek? It unfortunately is number twenty three. It gets beat by, get this, The Madagascar series! Link.

I don’t doubt it. But I wasn’t talking about opening night. was talking about the 70mm print with the thick magnetic stripe that provided 6 discrete audio surrounds. Which, if I recall didn’t run for at least the first 2 opening weeks because of that blind bid Paramount used to raise money with the regular theaters, and the fact that the whole thing was rushed so there was no chance 70mm prints were ready even if they wanted to.

My recollection is there were limited venues for that format and if not asap it did at some time eventually run in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome and did well there.

I think everyone was taken aback by Cumberbatch’s popularity in the far east. He certainly was based on his reaction at Tokyo airport. Korea seems particularly taken by him based on online responses. I think the STID producers need to twist his arm to do more promotion out there as thats a huge revenue source and could push STID’s figures sky high.

No doubt as I said above there was no way the 70mm prints were ready on premiere and I was waxing nostalgic about people viewing the ultimate experience.

Look, a lot around here use NEMESIS as a measure of the core fanatical Trek fans that are going to see anything with the name Trek plastered on it. Even ignoring the fact that that base must have grown since 1979-1980 TMP bests NEMESIS numbers. Someone outside of the fanbase had to be going to see TMP. Not SW numbers but average popcorn munchers must have been going to see it. Sure it had a longer run but in fewer theaters. I think it would tend to balance out.

I know you believe in this slide but you also focused on TMP’s 14 weeks. Do you honestly think that if ST:NEMESIS had a 14 week run that it would have bested TMP’s take?

I was in my 20s in a college town when TMP opened so I suspect my experiences were colored by that.

All of this what franchise is bigger is fascinating but seriously…. WHO CARES!!!! Star Trek makes its money and is making more now than ever. Lets not forget the Trek movies before 2009 were low budget niche Sci Fi flicks, extended TV episodes ideal for fans, less ideal for mainstream and kids. That said, for low budget movies they did extreeamly well against the likes of Independance Day and other of the day movies.

There’s a reason it’s number 23 on a list of over bloated movie franchises, its not a movie franchise, its a TV franchise. The movies how ever well they do are a happy little by accidents between TV series.

The Trek will continue as it always has, under new direction, this time due to Abrams success the movies will be bigger budget affairs and susiquently movies that pull in a bigger audience, despite fans negativity there really is no reason why Star Trek Into Darkness couldn’t pull in the studios first 1bn dollar Star Trek movie, regardless of Iron Man or Superman. If Abrams chooses not to direct the next one then the job will undoubtably fall to another director of the same calibour. From Trek 3, to paraphrase Captain Picard, the sky’s the limit….

Here’s the thing about this internet stuff. Way back in the day, before the internet is what it is now, say up to the late ’80sor early ’90s, there wasn’t much news in advance of a new movie. Sure, there were entertainment shows and magazines, but noone was immersed, 24/7, in the latest on the who, what, when, where and why of movie news. Now – a – days, I have to anticipate a movie for up to 4 years or more before it comes out! Arrrrrgggh!
Anyway, looking forward to JJ’s Star Wars movie as much as I am his new Star Trek movie!

1428. MJ. If you like wormhole sci-fi I can’t recommend ‘Century Rain’ by Alastair Reynolds high enough. I think Ahmed is also a Reynolds fan. I read it a long time ago but it is Noirish sci-fi with wormholes. I like the fact that Reynolds has a PhD in Astronomy and knows his way around physics. He (like me) was born the year of Trek :-)

#1431: Just for the sake of accuracy, Star Wars has actually had four television series (Ewoks, Droids, the first Clone Wars and the second Clone Wars), as well as four TV movies (Holiday Special, Great Heep and the two Ewok films).

“The Star Wars franchise people were desperate to get people interested in their planned sequels nobody cared about.
People only talk about their next movie, now, thanks to Mr. Abrams.
They needed him….”
___________

Yeah…Kathy Kennedy , her “remarkable group of people”, and George Lucas might have already watched Star Trek Into Darkness.*

They were impressed by it.

Impressed beyond belief , and, decided to grant Mr. Abrams some concessions about creative control**, perhaps mucho dinero, as well.
And now, with this announcement….NOW….and, especially in May, people will have to bear in mind that this talented man is going to do for them what he has done for Star Trek : “revive” the franchise, make fans and “non-fans” care about it (again).

His task?

Amongst other things, make some people forget about the very existence of the prequels.

There’s a substantial slice of the population here who are either too young or just weren’t around when TMP came out in 1979, and thus don’t appreciate the groundswell of anticipation that surrounded the movie.

Think about a few things. First, there was no such thing as the Internet, no Twitter, no Facebook, none of that. There was no 24-hour news cycle. There was no widespread cable TV in the commodity form in which it exists today. People sometimes got two newspapers *per day*, morning and evening. Most folks had TV from the Big 3 networks, maybe an educational channel and a few independents, and that was it. Now, factor in the post-TV popularity of Trek, with *none* of those assists, *reinvented how TV in general and the Nielsens in general* mesaured their audiences. Trek TOS arguably ushered in the generation of targeted age-range demographics.

This was one marginally watched (by contemporary standards) TV show that was perceived, right or wrong, as another sci-fi thing that most didn’t “get” or “like,” and once it was cancelled, that was it, done, poof, gone. There wasn’t even the most remote concept of moving to a different network, or going first-run syndication. It was toast. Finis.

That this groundswell of support for a dead TV show literally led to a network revisiting a cancellation decision in that era was nothing short of stupefying. And when Trek TOS went into strip syndication in the 70’s, it blew up the ratings books. And when rumblings and rumors of a new Trek TV series cropped up, the rumor mills went ballistic, until Paramount announced its plans for a new TV network with Trek II as its anchor.

…and then came something called “Star Wars.”

That put Paramount into a state of apoplexy. They didn’t know what to do with Trek, so they decided to make it a movie. And when it finally released, amid all the production problems, there were lines up and down the streets of movie theaters everywhere – and I was one of those 15-year-olds at the front of the line.

The expectation was astounding.

The delivery was, well, less so. I remembered enjoying the movie immensely, loved to see a great rendering of the Enterprise, but also thinking at times, man, when is someone gonna *do* something. It was a lumbering movie with an unsatisfying finish.

Why all this history lesson that some know, and some don’t? To point out the fact that there was most certainly a *tremendous* rollup of anticipation and excitement for TMP, and the result didn’t begin to match the expectation – not that any movie likely could have. Even Roger Ebert made reference to this at one point – saying “What were people expecting?” Even with the bad reviews and bad word of mouth, TMP still made a small fortune for its time, albeit likely stunted.

And TMP’s perceived failure unquestionably placed a permanent glass ceiling on Trek’s future. It took TWoK to get a fraction of it back. And heaven only knows how Trek’s future would have unfolded if TWoK had been the reunion movie rather than TMP.

The deterioration of expectations between TMP and Nemesis was the difference between the top of Mount Whitney and the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And there’s just a phenomenal irony for those of us who grew up in the TOS-TMP era to have seen how Star Wars took all that franchise energy away, to see such a similar bit of history unfold with SW, again, taking away the creative energy amid such strong expectations created with the reboot. And now the expectations for STID have inevitably been muted, at least a bit, because we know any third part of a prospective trilogy treatment will be given only a half-effort by Abrams, regardless of what he or Paramount may opine. That’s not a criticism, its just how the world works. Everyone wants a dream job, and Abrams got his. It’s just an unfortunate irony that Trek loses in the exchange.

Sorry for what will be seen as historical rehash for some, but I think a bunch here don’t really know or appreciate that history, just how much energy really was behind TOS return to TV in the 70’s, how unheard of such a return was back in that era, and the attendant buildup to TMP. That ramp-up was in the news, in magazines, newspapers, heck, even Paul Harvey rolled it into his news commentary. We hear about new big movies every day, but the expectation for Trek was immense for the era. To compare that to the expectations of the franchise by the time Nemesis rolled around doesn’t even pass the sniff test.

I watched TMP twice in theaters when I was 9. I remember finding it both boring (the plot) and mesmerizing (visually) as did a lot of people back then did I think. I used to “bash” TMP’s plot but after reading its back story and script and re-watching it again my stance has changed over the years. I really love the attention to detail that was put into that movie, especially its visuals and FX.

But anyone that says TMP “flopped” or “set Trek back” or something either wasnt around back then or are just talking through their hat. TMP made just slightly less the equivalent of Star Trek 09 at the domestic BO and WW made approx. 400+ million (adjusted for inflation). It did very well at the box office and got the attention of a lot of people. Granted some of the talk was about the “dull” plot, but it still got a lot of people talking either way. A lot of the disapointment about the box office results actually came from the studio who thought it was going to be the next ‘ Star Wars’ and so make Star Wars type money.

But actually TMP took a dime store budget 60’s TV show and remade it into a cinematic and visually stunning Sci-fi motion picture elevating the franchise to a new level. Maybe the story could have been “better” (its basically a remake of the episode “The Changeling”) but it did its job IMO and trust me the studio realized this as well or there NEVER would have been Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan”.

Yeah, it makes little sense when people claim TPM was a flop or somehow set Trek back. The film was hugely successful and made it possible for everything that has come since. Despite being a slow-paced retread of “The Changeling,” TPM remains one of the best films in the series, as far as I’m concerned.

There’d better be NO lense flares (at least not like in Star Trek) and NO redesigns of the ships (improved detail is fine), etc and the man BETTER respect EVERY aspect of the Original Trilogy.

I know he’s a fan, but there’ve been fans of properties before who went on to work on future installments of those properties and they either introduced questionable material, altered a major aspect of it, or ruined in entirely.

I hope SW7 begins with some bright spark on Endor saying, “Dude…destroying the Death Star, the Emperor and Darth Vader doesn’t actually mean the Empire is defeated. The government on Coruscant still controls thousands of planets by brute force, and, well, maybe someone on the Death Star actually called for reinforcements….”

Cue fleet of freshly-out-of-warp Star Destoyers laying waste to the remaining rebel fleet, the Ewoks’ party, a couple of clueless heroes and the whole freaking moon.

I actually think the way Star Trek is going to be defined now Star Wars is back is how Paramount and CBS deal with Star Trek between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third Star Trek movie.

If Into Darkness does well there will be a third movie and people will undoubtably go and see it as I’m sure it will tie up story lines left hanging in Darkness but the key to keeping Star Trek from falling into Star Wars shadow is to keep it in the public eye between movies, something that didn’t entirely happen between 2009 and this year. A new animated series and live action series plus a huge 50th world wide Trek celebration would go a long way in keeping the brand out there.

It doesn’t have to compete with Star Wars, but this would be a bad time to put Star Trek on the back burner, especially if Star Trek Into Darkness is well received.

@1453. Well, we probably need to quit living the fantasy this is a reboot, or a revitalization of the franchise. Three movies over an eighteen year span isn’t a reboot. Especially considering there is little other content or merchindising in that time frame. Trek isn’t going to compete with Star Wars, but if it weren’t for JJ Star Trek would have died with Enterprise. If there is going to be life breathed back into it, I agree that there needs to be more content created then what we have so far. There are stories to be told, someone needs to tell them.

@1449. Respect every single aspect of the origonal trilogy? Yeah, lets see…

Obi-Wan Kenobi – “These blast-points… Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise”.
Reality. Imperial Stormtroopers can’t seem to hit the floor with a hat.

Yoda – Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained…..
Reality…He spends a few weeks with Yoda, and wadda ya know, he’s a Jedi.

I could go on. Don’t be so quick to deman JJ not mess with SW’s, the previous movies did plenty of that on their own…

Haha yeah I don’t think we’ll be waiting 14 years between this and the next Trek

I wouldn’t be surprised if in 4 years we’re all excited over JJ Abrams final Star Trek movie as producer AND director, according to Paramount, nothing has changed from when Abrams wasn’t involved in Star Wars and why should it. These are two different franchises with two different stories and time scale wise, Abrams could indeed to both BUT Paramount and CBS need to do more with Star Trek between movies for it to build on its own success, forget Star Wars and focus on our own franchise

Don’t forget Trek had TV specials too. I remember two built around restored editions of THE CAGE. First was restoring most of the color with B/W footage used for the “lost” color segments. The second was a full color restoration with some seconds trimmed because while more was found not every second of color existed.

#1447. Aurore

There are ways around it but I doubt very seriously that Paramount (not to mention CBS) signed-off on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie.
If this actually happened there would be serious repercussions if it could be documented (And quickly dropped if the sequel makes serious coin but why risk it?).

#1448. soonerdave

Your basic premise is sound but don’t oversell it with gross exagerations to the point that you won’t be believed.

Yes we were stuck with snailmail but we did manage to network with newsletters that we propogated in chain mail fashion via cheap postage and the office copier. We had telephones which rightly or wrongly were being seriously hacked such that spreading the word was easy (blueboxes, hotline{different thing than what it means now}, etc.) We had AM radio that we could hear news far from outside our state’s borders. An FM 3 hour science-fiction weekly radio talk show, HOUR 25, that we’d tape and snail mail to our friends out of market via that newsletter net. Cable TV in my west coast abode had “nickelodeon” and WGN. Conventions too.

You are right: it was slower and a lot more work than it is today – but we made do.

@1456. From Nemesis, and assuming four years between Trek 12 and Trek 13. Assuming Trek 13 gets made at all. Actually, that would be 17 years…..or 15, if you start from the end of Enterprise. The point being that there has been little new content in a long time frame – all the more reason to be supportive of building a new audience that DOES seem interested in these characters….

“Yoda – Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained…..
Reality…He spends a few weeks with Yoda, and wadda ya know, he’s a Jedi.”

In Empire, Luke was never ready. Obi-Wan and Yoda seemed to be teaching Luke with what little they had on hand, and then Luke ran off to Cloud City against their advice. In Jedi, Luke’s training was “complete” as it could be seeing as Yoda was dying. There was nothing left to do, and both Yoda and Obi-Wan were essentially gambling on Luke being able to take down the Emperor.

It helped that Luke, like his father, was unnaturally gifted in the Force.

Thanks for the kind words! I even lose sight of the fact that lots of people here weren’t even around in that time frame, so I thought perhaps that background might be worth reiterating.

As far as what I think should be done with it by CBS/Paramount? I wish I had a great answer for that, because it’s an incredibly difficult question. I think STID will be very successful, which means *someone* will get the stick to make a third film. I think a new TV series *after* Trek “3” is possible, but its going to have to be done with *exactly* the right team in charge, because *their* job will now be to turn the *movie* form of Trek Abrams has created and rebuild that *back* into a marketable TV series!! How’s that for irony? And I would be very, very surprised if there were any long-term interest on the part of the current cast in any series TV project.

@1446 BatlethInTheGroin @1448 HughHoyland

You are absolutely right in stating that TMP was a success and made a phenomenal amount of money for the era. But it’s important to point out that success was muted – as was noted, it wasn’t “Star Wars” kind of money. And, for all the money it did make, a better-received movie (heck, even a better edited/polished one) would probably have made even more. I was heartsick as a kid back then to realize that the word of mouth for TMP was, honestly, terrible. I remember to this day the headline in the movie section of our local newspaper for the TMP review – “Star Trek Flashy, But Flawed.”

From the *studio’s* point of view the notion of TMP’s success was a bit tempered. They thought they’d shot the wad on Trek, it was a qualified success, but not to the extent they’d hoped or predicted, so the notion of a sequel was anything but assured. That’s why, once they opted to do a sequel, to make it a non-sequel-sequel :). They bailed on the epic story notion, and turned the role of producer over to a proven *TV* guy in Harve Bennett to helm it, and who, in turn, got an unknown guy by the name of Nick Meyer to direct it. Brilliantly enough, Bennett took his TV roots to heart, watched all the original eps, and thought a sequel to “Space Seed” would have the best shot at getting the Trek franchise back on its feet in theaters. And he would be proven spectacularly right. But make no mistake – Trek was on a short leash; minimal budgets, lots of re-used sets, lots of economy. So, yes, TMP made “Wrath of Khan” possible, but not really in a traditional sequel way of thinking. More in line of a “Well, that was good, but we can do a *lot* better.” One could argue from a creative point of view that “Khan” was made *in spite* of TMP, and its success vindicated the notion of TMP’s underlying flaws.

All that is to say, yes, TMP was successful, but not nearly as much as expected, and the studio’s enthusiasm for any kind of sequel was tepid at best. Paramount remained forever gunshy about Trek, and it took a successful three-story arc (TWoK, TSFS, TVH) to restore the enthusiasm to perhaps 70% of its pre-TMP level – only to have it crushed and melted by ST V, which is another story entirely.

I love watching TMP every once in a while, but part of me can’t help but wonder “what might have been” had the film not seemed to so consciously distance itself from the crew in light of a too-Kubrickesque, abstract resolution.

Going forward, and given Abrams departure (practical, if not literal) I think the current Trek franchise desperately needs a Harve Bennett type who “gets” Trek, and has the savvy to make the transition back to TV. I think Trek’s movie future after this cast may be limited, *especially* if its seen as going up as a competitor to Abrams new vision for Star Wars.

“There are ways around it but I doubt very seriously that Paramount (not to mention CBS) signed-off on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie.
If this actually happened there would be serious repercussions if it could be documented (And quickly dropped if the sequel makes serious coin but why risk it?).”
_________

” *Signed-off* “… on letting a major competitor sneak a peak at their movie….?

No.

That is not what I had in mind….

(And, I wasn’t being…entirely… serious, on that front. Besides, from what I’ve read, the nine minute preview might have been enough to impress… anybody….)

I don’t know who was comparing TMP to the expectations of NEMESIS but I introduced it because some say its gross rpresents a baseline consisting of the core fans that are going to see any sort of movie with STAR TREK plastered on it even if it’s just a guy flipping pages to show his animated movie. I just wanted MJ to get a sense that TMP drew people outside that baseline – planetary wide.

I agree it was a success. And I thank you for helping me to make that point.

Yes, TMP was not a “financial” flop, but it did the series no favors. One common comment from everyone involved in the film series has said that TMP practically killed Star Trek until Harve Bennett came around. It sure killed Gene’s participation. Trek films never recieved a great budget or much appriciation from Paramount until the JJ Abrams reboot..that you can trace that back to the fiasco of TMP.

“There was nothing left to do, and both Yoda and Obi-Wan were essentially gambling on Luke being able to take down the Emperor.

It helped that Luke, like his father, was unnaturally gifted in the Force.”

So, essentially we could say that Abrams went the “Empire-Jedi” route and made Kirk captain…Pike and the command saw that Kirk was naturally gifted in the area of being a leader of men and commander of a starship and are taking a gamble (being that Kirk had nothing more to learn except gain some experience and humility).

From everything I’ve read, Gene had so thoroughly alienated/infuriated most of the folks at Paramount that I think they’d have yanked him as EP even if TMP had made $1 billion in 1980 dollars. For all the benefit of GR having created Star Trek, he was very often its own worst enemy.

It does seem that way. I found it really facinating that Paramount refused to allow him to keep the 11′ filming model, yet they would have given it away for next to nothing until the Smithsonian picked it up. I still remember reading some comments from film production staff about how they suspected he leaked all sorts of spoilers regarding Trek 2 and 3 as a result of being locked out of them, as well as promoting the “Spock kills Kennedy” story

@1469. The hemming and hawing and delays of the PTN network, were also partly attributable to the horrible development of Star Trek: Phase 2. GR was phoning it in: read the “scripts” they were preparing…. yikes, Space: 1999 had better storylines developed than what Phase 2 would have been. Had Paramount bought him off, and had DC Fontana and David Gerrold executive produce both Phase 2 and/or TNG would have been so much better.

GR reminds me of the parody of Mike Brady in _A Very Brady Movie_, the Brady Bunch parody that was made. He could keep designing all sorts of things, but it always looked like his house. Genesis 2, Planet Earth, both were TOS redone on a planet. Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda was Planet Earth reset into space. (Hence all having Dylan Hunt.) Phase 2 was turned into TMP was turned into TNG. Decker-Ryker (the original spelling), ILIA (from Ilion, ancient Troy)-Deanna TROI. Xon, the Vulcan trying to understand human emotions-Data, the Android trying to understand human emotions. Older Wiser J.T.Kirk – Older Wiser J.L.Picard. Real-world mid-70’s disabled Star Trek fan George LaForge – Engineer Geordi LaForge, with a disability.

TMP made good money, but it wasn’t a runaway success. Keep in mind that the production was absolutely plagued with problems, not the least of which was Wise’s tendency to do numerous takes until he was satisfied. You also had all the Phase II baggage, as well as the original VFX company being sacked halfway through post-production (with almost nothing to show for it). And by the time they’d brought in Douglas Trumball to fix it all, they had to rush him through it. Very few of the key players were really satisfied with what was released (including Wise). Even Goldsmith had difficulty completing the score in time, and was working on it all the way til 5 days before the movie premiered. Despite years of pre-production, the whole thing ended up a rush job.

MISSING. Film Director. Answers to
“J.J.” or “Flashy Abe.” Last seen at
Disneyland wearing Yoda mask and
holding suitcase full of money. Will
pay cash reward, or Paramount logo
sweatpants. Your choice.
555-483-BOBO.

It gets reamed because a majority of the time it sucked..hard. Season 1 was one useless turd episode after another along with Season 2. Just bad rehashes of TOS with some Phase 2 rejects put in for good measure. The show started getting good in Season 3-5 then kinda slid into mediocre with 6-7. DS9 felt like more of an evolution of some ideas put forth in TOS.

It’s not a terrible show, but outside of a handful of episodes, it did not age well. They frequently used technobabble to get out of a situation instead of ingenuity. The Enterprise was nothing more then a flying hotel. Every little goober with a rent a ship could cause the Enterprise to come “one hit away from being destroyed”… Some of the changes the show made to existing “cannon” was odd…Honorable Klingons, Romulans with head ridges, the characters nothing more then Phase 2 rejects renamed and the always cramming down your throat that our society was “highly evolved”…also the fact that “interpersonal conflict” was not allowed between the main characters…..good show with a hand ful of great episodes, but was way too heavy handed in shoving the politically correct mindset down your throat.

and regarding the “racist xenophobes” that the Vulcan’s are…was that not something right out of Berman Trek? Even the Vulcans in TOS seemed to be a bit racist when dealing with Spock.

Yeah, Jerry Goldsmith had to go out and hire Fred Steiner to help finish composing/conducting the music for the film. The film had so many issues that they commissoned the Directors Edition to help complete the film.

@1460. There’s one problem with that, setting aside that the continuity between the first three movies (Ep’s 4,5,and 6) and the last three is beyond horrible. The dialog in the last half of TESB and ROTJ does suggest that the ghost Jedi’s are capable of rendering instruction, or at least guidance. I’d always taken Yoda’s ‘It is finished. No more training you require.’ line at face value. Then again, I’ve always been amused that getting messages from the Force was like adjusting the antenne on your old TV set. The crappy stuff seems to come through loud and clear, but reception always faded out on the important stuff.

I’m sorry but I really don’t like all this TNG bashing. It spoke to a generation and was just as its 60’s predecessor, relevant to the era it was produced in.

Arguably TNG was the most successful Star Trek has ever been. Certainly 1994 was the peek of Star Trek’s popularity.

It can be said that the TNG movies were unnecessary but that’s business for you, as long as you’ve got a successful brand your gonna milk it until its exhausted, with TOS it lasted 3 years and I think people always wanted more. It’s possible with the success of TNG on Blu Ray it may not be too long until we see Picard and co rebooted for ‘the next generation’

to try and elaborate further….my dad had gotten me interested in trek as a very young child, seeing what i guess would have been repeats on the BBC in the mid-late 70’s. Sitting in the cinema for that length of time for a ponderous sci-fi movie was never going to work for me – probably more used to the 45 minute format (no adverts on the BBC), and had also, not long before this, seen and loved a certain other ‘star’ movie which definitely did keep my attention all the way through. As my love of sci-fi and specifically all things trek developed over the years i found a much greater appreciation for TMP, both in its own right and within the trek canon as a whole.

A lot of folks today cannot imagine the experience it was to sit in a theare waiting for the movie to start and hearing the “Ilia’s Theme” musical prelude.

I probably saw it 7 times at the theater and it was the first movie I bought on Betamax – back with movies on video were a hundred bucks! STII was the movie that broke the price barrier when Paramount released it for an unheard of $39 bucks – gambling that they could make up the price difference by selling more copies, and getting folks to buy rather than rent movies.

The studios hated all the video rental stores and kept trying to figure out ways to get revenue on a play basis. One studion even sold videos in special packaging that had a counter on it – so they could tell how many times the movie had been played and charge the video store accordingly.

Another bit of trivia about TMP concerns the rush to adapt the telemovie script into a motion picture.

They didn’t have the ending when they started filming because in pilot script for an ongoing series they weren’t going to write off Decker and Ilia.

A few months into filming, someone sent me a copy of the script. The ending was totally different. I haven’t read it in many years but I recall that then ending involved Spock, Kirk and Ilia beaming down to the Smithsonian Institute to find an old working 16MM projector to play her historical footage of the Voyager missions.

“Roddenberry aimed high for his creation.” Yes, The Great Bird of the Galaxy wasn’t a perfect man but he did aim high for Star Trek.

@ 1475

Robman007 says,

“It gets reamed because a majority of the time it sucked..hard. Season 1 was one useless turd episode after another along with Season 2.”

Could not disagree with you more. TNG was an evolution from TOS. It brought forth the big ideas from the original series. Questions about science, definitions of life and philosophy were explored.

And let’s talk about Season One. Yes, there were some duds. Every TV series has them Even J.J. Abrams shows has them. See Lost which had a whole season of them. See season six.

But there were great season one TNG episodes. Here are some of them.

1. Encounter at Farpoint. (Sarcastically) So bad that TNG ended with plot points from this show. See the trial.

2. Where no one has gone before- Interesting way to travel through space by the Traveler.

3. The Battle- An exploration of Picard’s past.

4. Datalore- (Sarcastically) Yep, so bad that they came back to the Crystaline entity. We meet Data’s evil twin and get some of Data’s backstory.

5. 11001001- An episode that explores a society that has merged with computers. And a view of the holodeck where computer generated characters may have life.

6. Heart of Glory- A good Klingon episode.

7. The Arsenal of Freedom- This is the epitome of great Star Trek. Action. Adventure. And a big idea. Alien race which are arms merchants have created weapons of mass destruction that endanger the Enterprise. The big idea? Arms control.

8. The Big Goodbye- Film noir meets science fiction meets existentialism.! (Sarcastically) This turd (your term) was so bad that it was awarded a Peabody Award. The award is given to turds. (your term)
Seriously, the Peabody Award is given to “excellence” in television. Link. For example, Stephen Colbert has received them.

I love the metaphor in this episode. The themes of existentialism. The use of the song, “Out of Nowhere.” Get it? Oh, and by the way, this jazz standard is allegedly the harmonic basis for the original Star Trek theme. Link. (Some more research by Trekmovie’s music guy would be helpful here.)

Yep, all those “turds” (your term) led to six more years of Star Trek; The Next Generation and four movies.

I would have ended the TNG films with ‘First Contact’, then continued telling the Star Trek story with a couple of DS9 movies- add in a cameo or two from previous series… I would have ended Voyager while the crew was still heading home, then I would have ended the Rick Berman era with a movie that brings the cast of the TNG, and DS9 together on a mission that brings Voyager home, and ties up a few lose threads that were otherwise ignored.

ST:Ent? I enjoyed the stories, but it was a feeble attempt at making a prequel of an iconic series. There is so much that COULD have been doe and wasn’t It’s pointless to go on any further about it.

I would have re-written the Eric Jendrenson script that would have become the screenplay for Star Trek: The Beginning, making it less violent, and more relevant to the ‘Great Birds’ vision. The story could have been a pilot for a new series. (Had the powers that be scrapped the ST:ENT idea all together.) This would give the franchise the breathing room, and refresher time to get it right.

And I would have made the movie Star Trek 2009, but I would have someone direct it that was more familiar with the franchise, and less bogged down with other projects.

And I would keep the franchise routed to where it could produce a more cerebral, and a less fast-paced series… on television.

“A few months into filming, someone sent me a copy of the script. The ending was totally different. I haven’t read it in many years but I recall that then ending involved Spock, Kirk and Ilia beaming down to the Smithsonian Institute to find an old working 16MM projector to play her historical footage of the Voyager missions.”

Very cool, Lostrod. I think I had heard this a very long time ago, but had forgotten about it.

MJ – I’m going to have to work up the energy to maneuver my way to the back of my storage shed where I have my old collectibles. That’s where the old movie script is.

When the TMP came out there was a flood of merchandise – action figures, photo-novels, pop-up books, yo-yos, posters, models, lunchboxes, etc. I bought most of that when they went on sale a few months after TMP’s release. They’re all in a couple of footlockers out there.

Except for the lunchbox. I bought it on sale for 99 cents and sold it on eBay in 2000 for 300 bucks.

6. Skin of Evil – Turd…about the only good thing was getting rid of Yar, a boring character

7. We’ll Always Have Paris..Yawn.

8. The Neutral Zone…turd. Romulans with head ridges = WTF?

So, I do stand corrected, maybe the season was not littered with Turds, but it was damn horrible.

…and don’t give me that bullsh!t about it was “good enough to get 6 more seasons and 4 movies”…please. That’s like calling Spocks Brain an award winner. It did good because Star Trek fans were dying for something new on TV each week. Season 3 of TOS was at times easier to watch then Season 1 of TNG. Both had some gems, but both were turds. A turd is a turd is a turd no matter how much polishing you put on it. TNG survied into Season 2 because Trek fans wanted more Trek like an alcoholic wants some Jack Daniels, not because of how “great” season 1 was.

Season 2 did to slightly better…although it did have the epic TURDS of introducing that harry mudd rip off “Okuna” and the ever so awesome (sarastically speaking…) Shades of Grey.

Oh, and you forgot to list Conspiracy. One of the Best ep of the entire season 1.

Season 1 and 2 of the TNG are nearly unwatchable as a whole — the turds are really bad, and there are a lot of them. By comparison, those seasons of TNG make the 3rd season of TOS look like Citizen Kane.

Brainfart……I had WNMHGB on 8mm in that viewer that had the crank on its side……….also the RCA Video Disc..I remember playing with the stereo sound in the store ( the specific scene ; the enterprise decelarating at Regula 1 in TWOK)…I also had the “Kelly Green movie viewer ” which was a gold key comic story printed on celuloid that you help upto the light. Gotta love 60’s tech.

@1503…exactly. I like TNG as much as the next guy, even though I think it aged badly and was not as good as TOS, but you are correct. Season 1 and 2 are horrible, with the exception of a few episodes. They do make Season 3 of TOS look like Citizen Kane.

@1509…Conspiracy was awesome. I love that episode. Felt like a Season 1 or 2 TOS story. Could have gone in a million directions. Every time I hear Harve Bennett talk about going back to watch TOS to find something to make a movie on and the “seed” that Spock talked about in regards to Khan, I always look back at Conspiracy as a seed that went unnoticed in the miles upon miles of politically correct nonsense, just because it threatened the “happy days” society that TNG set up. Good episode with some killer cool action scenes.

I’m not saying TNG as a whole stunk it up, but Season 1 and parts of 2 are just hard to “trek” through…I watch the couple gems that Season 1 made and skip the rest when doing my watch through..

but TNG did NOT SURVIVE to Season 2 because of the “greatness” of Season 1. It survived because fans wanted more Trek on TV. I remember that time and thinking about how inferior the show was compaired to TOS….that was about until mid Season 3.

@1511…..Exactly. Don’t let folks fool ya. Those who were old enough to watch TNG Season 1 hated that show when it first aired and for good reason. With some very few and far between exceptions, the show was rotten to the core (even the actors admit that much)…it became awesome around mid Season 3.

I tuned in for TNG from the start, and my opinion was they were just getting their shit together. They veered so far off-course from the writers’ guide once Klingons and Romulans showed up. The show was far from “rotten to the core,” and as others have stated above, one can cherry-pick some gems out of the wreckage.

Nope, I practically celebrated every season of TNG. Perspective is a tricky thing. I LOVED TOS and was raised on it. Heck, it was the reason I fell in love with sci-fi and genre stuff to begin with. But from my own personal perspective, I think people tend to look at it with rose colored glasses (no offense Keachick). There is a lot to be critical of in all three seasons. But it’s the bigger picture that is most important. TOS (for those who aren’t die-hard fans) hasn’t aged well either. But I give it a pass as we are all products of our time. I would suggest that most of the negativity for TNG is a result of the still pervading feelings of jealousy that it instilled in TOS fans. The only reason that one could possibly cherry pick more bad TNG eps than TOS is because one had a 3 year run and one had a 7 year run. Hey if you don’t like it you don’t like it. But calling TNG a “turd” or any other name is absolutely no different from people calling NuTrek garbage. I’m not a tremendous NuTrek fan but enough people love it for me to not spew out and out hate at it.

TNG, like TOS before it, was a source for outstanding story telling and some really brilliant science fiction. And it was also a source for some dog episodes. But if one is to be objective then one has to concede that both series stand on their own merits and neither is better than the other.

Obviously without TOS NuTrek doesn’t exist. But I would also say that without TNG it wouldn’t exist either. Feel free to now slice me to ribbons. Or ignore me.

Now we know what J.J. stands for…Jar Jar. Jar Jar Abrams. It was inevitable. In spite of his ‘loyalty’ to Trek being an obvious joke I think hes the right choice for Star Wars considering thats what the last two Trek movies were. Im also willing to bet that Star Wars will flourish under him. Now lets get somebody to produce Trek that actually wants to. Onward and upward.

You know I can agree with you that the “Naked Now” is a bad rehash of a TOS episode. It should have never gotten past the pitch stage. Then you say this;

“…and don’t give me that bullsh!t about it was “good enough to get 6 more seasons and 4 movies”…please.”

First, I’m detecting a theme here. “Bullsh-t” “Turds” Sounds like well, feces. :-) I’m sorry the brown stuff is on your mind. . I’ve named eight very good episodes with one winning the Peabody Award for Television excellence. Again, I agree there were duds and some in between. Some of your “turds” I would argue weren’t that bad. It’s subjective. But here are the facts if the show was as bad as you say it was. They made six more years of the show. Three more series. Four feature films. Period. All those Trekkers can’t possibly be so drunk and high that they all hated the first two seasons of TNG but maybe they said, “It’s terrible but we’ll keep watching because no matter how bad it is, we’ll watch Star Trek.” I bet that a large number of Trekkers don’t hate the TNG as much as you do. And what about those fans buying TNG Blu-rays. They must be saying I hate season one and two but I’m going to buy them. Did CBS say, “Boy, Trekkers hated TNG but darn it, let’s spend money to remaster the show and drunkh Trekkers will buy it?” My point is there are many Trekkers who don’t think TNG was a bunch of “turds.” (Your word.)

But let’s use your logic about fans demanding more content even if the first in the series ” stinks.” Sorry, I’m not into calling stuff fecal matter. Let’s take a look at the 2008 movie, Speed Racer.

Speed Racer has an anime and cult following. In 2008 they made a movie of the character. Yes, it’s not Star Trek. But it still has a fan base. The movie was a critical and financial bomb. Where are the fans demanding a second Speed Racer movie? Are they saying,”Gee, the first movie was so bad but I love Speed Racer so much that I want another?” There won’t be in any time soon a “Speed Racer 2.” The quality of the first movie killed a sequel.

Good point, THX. TNG was not a total turd. I just look back at season 1 and parts of 2 and smell elephant crap. I love watching seasons 3-5. TNG to me seemed like an idea better explored on TV while the original series and its characters are great for film (and even TV)…then again, I still can’t forgive Generations for killing Captain Kirk and in such a pathetic way.

NuTrek has its problems. I didn’t care for the alternate reality crap. One lesson I learned from countless hours of Trek TV is if you change the past, it alters the future…and, while I understand the reasoning behind the rapid promotions (waiting 3 films just to see Kirk be Captain is about as dumb as waiting 3 films to see Anakin become Vader), it was a tad silly.

At this point, I look at the original TOS 1+79 as one long episode, and I throw the crap in with the absolutely brilliant eps, and when I shake it up like a martini, it all gels into one unforgettable puzzle piece from my childhood, another from adolescence, then my high school and college years. TMP blew my nads off up until Spock joined the crew in the film, and then it starts sucking, TWOK was the first film I ever saw on a date, III & IV I watched out of strict Trekkieness, V killed me, and VI was just my buddy who had been on line with me in 1979 for TMP and I in a quiet upper-east side cinema a few weeks after it had opened Trekking out.

TNG I watched from the get-go with fan-glasses firmly on, and the critic’s glasses thrown away. Going back to the VHS tapes/DVDs/BR set, I will no longer watch “Code of Honor” or “Angel One” or that piece of shit where Wesley crosses a border on some sexy planet and gets sentenced to death, so that Picard can piss off God. I fart in the general direction of “Shades of Grey” or “The Outrageous Okona” and Wesley Crusher, but in the end, even before season 3, TNG was wrapping some mighty eps. Unlike TOS, however, the shit ones will never become part of the overall oeuvre to me. Best to squeeze them out like swollen zits, and enjoy what’s good in a series that had the luxury of time and money to find its feet.

1453. Picard, Jean-Luc – January 29, 2013
I actually think the way Star Trek is going to be defined now Star Wars is back is how Paramount and CBS deal with Star Trek between Star Trek Into Darkness and a third Star Trek movie.

If Into Darkness does well there will be a third movie and people will undoubtably go and see it as I’m sure it will tie up story lines left hanging in Darkness but the key to keeping Star Trek from falling into Star Wars shadow is to keep it in the public eye between movies, something that didn’t entirely happen between 2009 and this year. A new animated series and live action series plus a huge 50th world wide Trek celebration would go a long way in keeping the brand out there.

It doesn’t have to compete with Star Wars, but this would be a bad time to put Star Trek on the back burner, especially if Star Trek Into Darkness is well received.

I agree with you I think Paramount will make a Big deal out Trek and promote it in between Into Darkness and Star Trek 3 if we get a Third movie which i hope we do, I think they will play up all the Annverseries in between movies but a TV series will be harder to do cause CBS not Paramount owns the rights to any new TV Series and the hole thing became a mess when the two Divorced

My favorite Trek series is “Deep Space Nine”. Not many episodes from that show you can call terrible, though “Profit And Lace”, where Quark gets a sex change, is pretty awful. But good for a laugh or two.

Season one of DS9 was mainly blah, not terrible, but so far from the greatness it would achieve in its latter seasons.

Of the non-TOS shows DS9 is probably my favorite. It came the closest to having the ‘final frontier’ feel to it I would expect from a sci-fi space show. Don’t know that I would have signed off on the Dominion War arch, but it was handled as well as you would expect, and did a good job of portraying some of the less them plesant aspects of war. Also a fan of Avery Brooks, which helps….

Star TOS Blu-Ray arrived today for me. Got it for $82 on Deep Discount DVD (all three seasons) — can you believe that price?

I wish DanielCraigWasMyWookieBitch still posted here, because he was insistent that TOS seasons would never fall below around $50 each, and didn’t believe my strategy for waiting in which I said eventually I could get them for in the $30-$40 range each…$27 each sure feels like vindication to me! LOL

MJ, I wonder if CBS would base a Trek TV series based on Trek DVD and BluRay sales in addition how much the sequel makes. After ST 2009 any new fans Trek got they weren’t exactly demanding a new Trek TV series. Which makes me wonder if rebooting Trek, even though I liked ST 2009 was really successful in getting new fans?

Yes, many Trekkers were followers of the “City on the Edge of Forever” theory of time travel. Change the past, change the future. I messed that up from Star Treik 2009 also. But I researched it and found this great website that did an interview with Bob Orci who explained it. When you go back in time you create a parallel universe. Now if they used that term and if there was more of a discussion of what happened with Nero between Spock Prime and Kirk; .it would have been clearer. You see I’m a blogger not a physicist.

By the way, the movie, Looper, is not about creating parallel universes. You change the past, you will change the future. The time travel in that movie had some problematic time travel paradoxes. Until the Greys show us how they time travel, we may never know which theory is right. :-)

Guys, you say like DS9. Interesting. Because that show is the antithesis of Star Trek 2009. All three of you loved the 2009 film. I meant J.J. Abrams has said he thought Star Trek was talky. ( Entertainment Weekly, May 8-2009, pg. 30.) And I also liked DS9. But DS9 was talky. It had no choice. They couldn’t do big action shows every week.

I’ve just watched DS9’s Homefront and Paradise Lost. Talky. And fascinating. Intelligent. Prescient. Why? The shows were about the Dominion threat causing changes to society to stop terrorism. The show could have been made after 9/11. That’s what I love about Star Trek. Ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. The television shows asked you to think.

I think Star Trek owes Nolan a chance since the upcoming film’s poster idea is STOLEN from Dark Knight Rises! A reboot by Nolan is a natural choice. and whoever has approved a long awaited ST film’s launch poster to be a STOLEN one, that idiot sitting in Paramount offices should be FIRED. I dont need to say anything about the people who stole the idea, they are just pathetic.

But if by some miracle Abrams directs his third Trek that’s precisely NOT the kind of movie we’ll get. On two different Trek films he’s claimed to be proud he made stand alone works. So, I’m expecting him to go for that again if he’s given the opportunity, and I just don’t see how he’s going to tie up threads if he has no interest in what ever new Trek narrative he works on requiring a previous one to have been seen?

#1523.Red Dead Ryan, 1524.Craider, 1526.Phil, 1534.Basement Blogger

I’ve only asked one thing of Trek after ToS: To take the storytelling of the best of the first series and build on and beyond. DS9 delivered.

#1528. Craiger

I’ve been asking that question in these parts since the 2009 premier. Claims have been made of vast hordes of demographically desirable new fans that some claim exceed the old fan base, but when asked “Where are they?”, the answer I get is “I see them at the convention in Vegas.” which only answers another question “Where are some new fans?” and not mine. Because if this purported horde had showed up in Vegas, for a con, it would be massive news and Vegas Trek Cons aren’t making the world’s newspapers’ front pages.

The horde didn’t show up on opening day CinemaScores which said attendance consisted of upper-middle-aged males.

Their 2009 toy line gets cancelled right in the middle of holiday shopping season and anounced novels yanked and do they get organized? No. Do they bury CBS in letters to get a better toy manufacturer lined up immediately? No. Do they bury CBS in letters to get at least one of those novels published? No

And your posit inspires the question: Are they burying CBS demanding a television series in some venue be produced based on their flavor of Trek? No.

In my time we had recourse to the aphorism: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” With respect to this desirable demographic horde, I submit: There’s no will, because there’s no they.

Its clear a lot of new fans have come into the franchise but possibly not the kind who buys toys or goes to conventions.

However what I have seen is that Star Trek’s appeal over these last 4 years since the 2009 movie has broadened and long-term Trekkies have really come out of hiding to celebrate this new love of Star Trek enjoying global events like Star Trek Destination London, which despite all the negative comments was a huge sellout event and proved to be very successful.

I think we can learn from what Abrams did that actually Star Trek was already a very well regarded brand name which really just needed to be pushed into the public eye which happened with JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie. So much so that Star Trek Into Darkness is one of, if not the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 – hows that for a franchise just 10 years earlier was being left at the bottom of the pile being beaten by Maid In Manhattan…

As for toys and merchandise. Since 2006 DST have been producing Star Trek toys for the older fans, now despite Playmates lack of success, A little unknown company called Hasbro now have the rights to put out toys for the masses but by and large movie tie-in lines even for the likes of Batman or Avengers don’t really have an extensive longevity. The success of that line will be determined not entirely by the success of Into Darkness but really the kind of success of Into Darkness, it seems they weren’t really going for the kids demographic with that one.

If we want to see more Star Trek toys on the shelves at Toys R Us then its CBS’s job to get an animated series made or a tea-time trek series made directly aimed at the kids…

Changing the subject, can we talk about Star Trek as if it were an equally important, if not more important universe of wonderful stories than Star Wars which by all accounts is an over-bloated mess designed to sell toys….

Really Anthony, i love you man but this is really taking the p*ss, you need to let other people contribute to this site. There’s been so much news over the last week on TrekWeb…here it seems to be selective or when someone can be bothered.

This is the buildup to something we’ve been waiting for for 4 years and also one of the biggest trek events of all time..this was the flagship site for trek news. If it wasn’t for this ‘comments’ section (not a forum as many people like to call it) people would have abandoned ship.

1549. I agree with you these fans may not be the type of fans that go to Conventions or sit around and talk trek here, bu they are the kind of people who will go see trek films because Trek has become cool in there mind.

Totally agree with this statement you made:I think we can learn from what Abrams did that actually Star Trek was already a very well regarded brand name which really just needed to be pushed into the public eye which happened with JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie. So much so that Star Trek Into Darkness is one of, if not the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 – hows that for a franchise just 10 years earlier was being left at the bottom of the pile being beaten by Maid In Manhattan…

For Star Trek to thrive it has to make money and pull in General Audances, I hope we get a Third movie and that Trek keeps on coming with new stuff over the years.

I am starting to think now that maybe asking where is the news is pointless, because when we do get news we are just happy to get news. No one asks if the new SOP of Trekmovie is to just post some news and then take a month off after their is some updates.

The fact that J.J. is now directing the next installment of one of the most beloved science fiction/fantasy franchises in existence, in such as short amount of time in directorial experience, goes to show you how great he is at what he does. I wish him all the best and what I hope will be a Star Wars film in Episode VII that will blow everyone away. I say this being a huge, and primarily, a fan of everything Trek.

And perhaps lightsabers causing lens flares, just to make the haters hate.

f JJ job is to make moves and he had an oppunity to make another move so he took it.
doesn’t mean he will ruin Star Wars or he will hurt Star Trek it just means he got another Job but will still be around if we get a 3rd Movie and I nomanate Bob Orci to Direct.

Some topics I would like to address (The ‘groans’, ‘moans’, and ‘mouse-clicks’ are deafening):

I got to thinking about what Basement Blogger was saying about DS9 being “talky”. Now that I think of it that is exactly the sort of thing about Star Trek that I gravitate toward. Probably a big reason that I liked TNG so much as well. And while I do enjoy the movies I have never been as big a fan of them as I have the series. That includes ALL of the first six movies, save for TMP, which in it’s collector’s edition form seems to me to be like a TOS episode on steroids. I think I like the balance of action and, for lack of a better word, “talkiness” to be about 75% talk and 25% action. It seems to me that most of the movies favor action over thought provoking dialogue. And that is why I much prefer Trek on TV.

I have to admit that I am not at all surprised that JJ is doing SW. Even after he came out with his statement to the contrary I just knew that he would take the job if offered. I even said so on this very site *pats self on back*. But it all just leads me to believe that JJ is a bit disingenuous. The guy loves to play games of subterfuge, decoy, and deceit (I don’t mean that last word as harshly as it sounds). I think his directing style would be a perfect fit for the Star Wars movies that I love and remember fondly; those being IV thru VI. I hope VII is a transition movie that will have the old cast sending off a new cast, and that the tone is more like IV thru VI. But as an aside will JJ ever find a career as a director of movies other than movie versions of TV shows and tentpoles?

Finally, I do miss the way this site was run before Trek 09. It was vibrant and full of new information and updates and it made me feel connected to the production of the new movie, like we were all insiders to a cool club. I felt like WE were playing a part in the production to some degree. It was a feeling of inclusion. Now I feel like I’m just another observer, which honestly is a little sad. There was no “live chat from the set” this time. There is less interaction with Orci. And there is NO interaction with Anthony. As a result (along with the fact that I was a little disappointed with the movie we got in 09) I find that I’m just not as excited for May 17th, which just happens to be my birthday. My son yesterday was surprised to hear that I had taken a gig on that date and had no plans to see STID. I told him it will be out all summer. It’s a little strange to not have the new Star Trek movie be my most anticipated upcoming movie of the year, but there it is.

Miller says that Abrams’ involvement in Star Wars could set the stage for both it and Star Trek to live long and prosper.

“Like Star Wars, the Star Trek universe has plenty of fans that have grown up to become talented, influential filmmakers,” he says. “Assuming Into Darkness does well, there will be more quality Trek in the future, even if it comes with a different director.

Always good to hear from you THX. I share your “meh” attitute towards STID, though I’m not sure why. I couldn’t care less if JJ is directing SW. Different directors directed SW V and VI and they were excellent. And nothing says JJ won’t also direct the third ST movie, and there was always the possibility of him not directing STID either, and no-one was going to make a big deal out of it.

Anyway, all this is irrelevant… Hockey is back! Sorry, I’m, huh, Canadian…

Nice to see you back. May your Zamboni be forever fueled by Canadian gas extraction methods.

I echo THX’s frustration at how this site has changed from one of closeness to the franchise to the laggard on the web for Star Trek news. The mainstream newspapers, from Washington Post to the Independent (UK), plus EW and the Onion, have all put the latest JJ news at the forefront of their Entertainment sections.

TM posted a bare-bones article, then confirmed JJ’s appointment hours after fans were already discussing it in the thread.

So far, NO feature on the viral iPhone homemade copy of the STID trailer or the Esurance tie-in FB site. Anthony has been quoted in other media as to his thoughts on Abrams, but he has yet to appear here for the debate. Trek/STID and SW are benefiting from a ‘bump’ right now, and those of us who rely on TM are farthest from the real story, reading (good) articles about models and books. And, BTW, Peter David having a stroke should have been an article in itself.

I will see STID. But, like THX, it’s not high on my to-do list. Abrams’s amateur strangulation of marketing, and TM’s blind compliance without benefits has made the build-up just plain boring. I get more Trek news from Huffington Post aggregation now than from Trekmovie.

I don’t care about video games, or the actress who played Captain Garrett’s ruminations on the role, like Trekweb is running. I care about Star Trek moving forward without the lingering doubt that has frankly dogged the franchise through thick and thin since the 1970s. I’m sick of the survival story.

JJ is a superb modern action director, and he has injected new life into Trek (again), but cannot meet a deadline to save his life. MI and Trek have put him on the map as a director, but I want to hear how he has put Star Trek back on the map as a viable franchise. Just not there yet. Not enough. I hope STID is as good as the trailer shows.

I’ve heard that STID has a Superbowl ad planned this Sunday (someone please confirm). I am sure Trekmovie will not cover it, but I’ll go to Huffpost for the ‘big Superbowl ads of 2013.’

It’s nice to have these discussions with folks who are not given to hyperbole and vitriol. Further proof that we can all discuss Star Trek and Star Wars intelligently, thoughtfully, and respectfully, all while acknowledging differing points of view.

I absolutely do not think any less of people who are tremendous fans of NuTrek . Actually, I am thankful for them, as I see them as being the ones that are keeping Star Trek alive, perhaps much more than I am (as a fan). But I’m given to outbursts of emotion and I sometimes put too sharp an edge on my comments. And I am horrible at suffering those I perceive as fools. Truth be told, I take an almost troll-like glee in egging them on and slapping them down. Definitely a fault. I’ll work on it (yeah, right).

But maybe some of you can help me. How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09? Is it the different actors? Is it really the AU? It just doesn’t have the right ‘tone’ for me. And that’s strange given that all the rest of the Trek movies are made by different productions, have different ‘tones’ from each other, and DEFINITELY are of varying degrees of quality.

Anyway, let’s keep talking. WE will be what makes this site fun, I suppose.

On why some Trekkers feel a little disappointed in Abrams vision of Star Trek.

THX-1138,

First, let me say that you wrote two very good posts. Second, yes I did say DS9 was talky but let me say this. I liked DS9. I liked DS9 more than Star Trek 2009

You then ask this question of us:

“How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09?”

Before the 17 year to 28 year old demographic jumps on me, let me say I liked Star Trek 2009. But like you, I was left a little cold by it. Why?

THX, Star Trek 2009 was not made for Trekkers. Director J.J. Abrams said this,

“We weren’t making a movie for fans of Star Trek. We were making a movie for fans of movies.” Entertainment Weekly, Oct. 24, 2008 pg. 30.

It was made for the audience that regularly goes to the movies in the summer. Teenagers. Link. The proof is on the first disc of the movie in the documentary “A New Vision.” The section is called, “What can we learn from Star Wars here?” It’s a question posed by Abrams to change Star Trek to appeal to the “modern” movie audience. “Modern movie audience” is an euphemism for teenagers.

Here’s the problem with that approach. Star Trek is not Star Wars. Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is science fantasy. Case in point. Remember the great movie Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back; the gigantic worm living in an asteroid? Fun but completely unscientific. No atmosphere, gravity or food for that worm. At least, Star Trek tries to stick to science. The Trek TV series had science advisors.

But here’s the biggest difference. Star Wars is your basic black and white story about good versus evil. Star Trek is about ideas. Scientific. Philosophical. Take for example the TOS “The Devil in the Dark.” Could have easily been a monster tale. Instead, it’s a story about tolerance.

We love Star Trek because it did three things well. It told tales that had adventure, heart and intelligence.

SECOND STAR TO THE RIGHT. AND STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING.

I’ve seen the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness. And I’m encouraged. It’s very good start. Bringing in the Prime Directive was a great idea. It has me thinking and hopefully it has new Trekkers and non-Trekkers thinking. It was also exciting if a bit too fast in the pacing area. Still, I’m looking forward to STID. So, let’s hope we can calll STID, “a Star Trek movie.”

#1576 – What are you talking about? In the article you linked, it mentions that Abrams was “flipping out” when he learned that Ardnt and Kasdan are already working on the movie. So, Abrams is excited that the writers already started working, but–according to you–no one told him they already started. HUH?!?!

#1576 – Oh, wait…did you thinking “flipping out” in this context meant Abrams was mad? No, he was “on the ceiling” and thrilled about them already working on it. If you meant something else, then I still say HUH?!

Not what I mean. When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?

“But maybe some of you can help me. How come I just don’t get a ‘Trek’ feeling from JJ’s production? Why can’t I get as excited about it as everyone else (save perhaps for you, Silvereyes)? I mean, I watched Insurrection last night for Pete’s sake and found myself getting into it! How can I prefer that to Trek 09? Is it the different actors? Is it really the AU? It just doesn’t have the right ‘tone’ for me. And that’s strange given that all the rest of the Trek movies are made by different productions, have different ‘tones’ from each other, and DEFINITELY are of varying degrees of quality.”

I think it is because you are so used to the “traditional Trek” that you have somewhat closed your mind to a fresh approach. Let me explain before you react the wrong way here please….

A lot of people didn’t like TMP because it was a fresh approach — in fact they brought in Harve Bennett and kicked out Gene Roddenberry to go back to a more traditional TOS-like series of Trek movies instead of the new “hard sf” approach that Gene Roddenberry wanted to take. For my part, I like both the TMP fresh approach, as well as the going back to basics approach in Trek 2 and its sequels…to me, they all fit within possible Star Trek approached.

So now in 2009, JJ takes Trek the other way from tradition — injecting more action and reducing talk — going to a bit of a “softer sf” approach. For my part, I embraced this change, and it still seemed like it was within the realm of possible Star Trek approaches for me.

So, in conclusion, to provide you a bit of “tough love” advice here as a fellow fan who wants you to enjoy nuTrek more, I recommend that you need to be more open and accepting to new Trek approaches and not been so stubbornly tied to the past. I urge you to reject sentimentality and try to embrace these changes in Trek.

STAR TREK is never going to be regarded as STAR WARS equal on ticket sales alone in the media. Besides, the behaviors you are ascribing to Nufans, not consuming avaricely all ancillary merchandizing regardless of quality are that which a much older (and undesirable given Paramount et al’s claimed objectives) demographic.
What you suggest is significant. But as in Trek of old, TPTB don’t appear ready to deal with it. So in the media which will always be comparing it to SW, this Trek is doomed to be perceived as coming up short.

“Not what I mean. When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?”

If Orci is not available, then I would say: Neil Blomkamp or Duncan Jones.

Pick one. Either would be a “genius pick” for Trek 3, and we’d likely get a bit more serious of a Trek movie that with JJ’s/Orci’s style, which might be a good change of pace.

Excellent points, guys. I’ve struggled to find the Trek “feel” in Abrams’ Trek as well. Maybe it’s because it’s aimed at a younger age group. Trek Lite, so to speak. But I still look forward to seeing Into Darkness, if only to see if it really does “go deeper.”

The difference in Trek and Wars I think is apparent in those they inspire: Trek is a favorite among scientists, engineers, astronauts and the like, while Wars seems to be a bigger inspiration among filmmakers, composers, special effects artists and so on.

I don’t mind the tough love. I have kids and sometimes have to apply it liberally to them all.

I can see where you are coming from. And I would also admit to being stubborn when it comes to certain changes. I think we can all agree that JJ’s approach to Star Trek was something of a departure. But now that I’ve taken the time (briefly) to ponder my own question I think there are a number of reasons I could include with your own theory. It could be seeing different actors in the parts. In the same way that I enjoy some of the fan productions (Star Trek Continues being the one I most anticipate) I am constantly being taken out of the story by the fact that the actors are different. I don’t know if it’s good or bad but it’s real. And as I have said many times before, I was disappointed to find out that Trek 09 was going to be in an alternate timeline. That has soured me on it and I, perhaps unfairly, just haven’t given it a chance.

Make no mistake, I’ll see STID this summer. And I will enjoy the experience of seeing it. But that stupid voice in my head is going to keep squawking at me about how it’s not really Star Trek. It’s like going out on a date with a beautiful blonde and being disappointed because you prefer brunettes.

Didn’t the non Trek fans not want to see Trek because it had more science and not enough action in it and thought you have to understand science in order to understand Trek? Then JJ changed that by adding more action and less science. However as I said before they aren’t exactly clamoring for more Trek. I guess we will find out of that’s true with the STID box office report.

His comment about Star Trek, “I’m not making this for Star Trek fans, Im making this for fans of movies”

What does this say about him? Even though he made Star Trek popular again it sounds like he is more thrilled at having Star Wars.

Not sure I like the tone saying he is respecting fans of one franchise and saying he is making a film for the fans on the other franchise, and it is the one he said he was not making for the fans that I am a bigger fan of.

@1593. Well, that quote doesn’t really sound like that of a moviemaker. I’d expect him to bring the same sense of telling a story for fans and non-fans alike, regardless of the franchise. It would also imply he’s taking a shot at George Lucas, also not a wise move.

Even taking it at face value, it’s an isolated comment. JJ, and the rest of the staff, have fallen all over themselves to be mindful of the fan base, too. Mr. Orci puts up with a lot of s**t when he visits the site here. All the producers comments, in context, suggest they have healthy feelings for how devoted the fan base is here as well.

Trolling on the internet is posting remarks that could be taken as derisive or condescending to the other posters in a particular comment thread. Trying to pick a fight by saying something inflammatory.

“Well, since the old canon is never coming back, they have no choice. But I do feel sorry for the people who want to get their hopes up every four years for the next century or so.

It must be a strange feeling to realize you were only ever in it for the canon.”

I think this helps Paramount by forcing their hand. For a long time now, the studio allowed J.J Abrams and co. to take as much time needed and to miss several deadlines. But ever since the Disney/Lucasfilm deal happened, and certainly more so after Abrams has agreed to direct the next “Star Wars” film, I’m absolutely certain that Paramount won’t tolerate any more procrastination/delays on the part of the producers and writers.

Paramount sees what Disney has done, and now the Paramount is going to have to up their game to ensure that the new fan base created by the last Trek movie doesn’t get swallowed up by Disney.

Paramount is also going to be forced to do better promotions overseas.

At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.

@1593. Well before we take this all personally and label JJ the Trek version of the Antichrist, let’s acknowledge that the Trek “market” for movie goers needed to be expanded greatly and the SW “market” does not. That’s where he is coming from here.

But if folks want to whine about his intentions and misconstrue this, have at it. I just don see these comments in that light.

“At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.”

There is some truth to what you are saying. I hope the converse of what you are saying doesn’t come to pass, though. That being that if JJ’s involvement with Star Wars interferes with a Trek production to the point that Paramount pulls the plug on Bad Robot’s involvement and we have to start at square one again. JJ does seem to spread himself thin and when you take into consideration that in his heart he probably is more excited about Star Wars than Star Trek we could find ourselves “Trekless’ again.

@1602. Agreed. Back when the Lucasfilm deal was announced I didn’t feel that it was going to be an issue for STID, but that Paramount was going to have to decide if they wanted Trek in theaters more frequently then every four or five years. While Star Wars may be the kick in the pants, Paramount also have to look at how Disney is managing Marvel, and recognize that cranking out some moneymakers on a regular basis is good for the fans and the bottom line.

And actually, once the sequel has completed its movie run, say mid-summer of this year, I’d like to see Paramount quietly get a different Exec Producer for Trek 3. JJ’s been outstanding, but I really don’t want a JJ who’s activities are divided running Trek from here on out. I mean, you can’t head both GM and Ford.

J.J Abrams’ statements about not making Trek movies strictly for the fans isn’t a slap in the face to us. He’s just against appeasing a die-hard, oftern fanatical and somewhat funadamentalist fan base.

Would Paramount want to reboot Trek again? The general movie going audience probably has gotten used to the new cast. Unless they can reboot Trek again with the new cast? Or would Trek have to have an all new look and feel again? How many times can you reboot Trek with everyone loosing interest? Paramount even thought they overextended Trek by having too many series and movies at one time.

@1607. Considering all the projects Bad Robot has active and in development, he’s been spread really thin for a while now. At some point JJ is going to have to just settle in and run the empire, like Spielberg does…

Well we don’t know how the TNG era got effected by the AU? Would the ships still look the same or more advanced since the Enterprise is more advanced in the new timeline. If that’s the case I wonder if they could even reboot TNG because TNG would maybe be too advanced with too much technobabble?

1597. Phil agree it is good to have Mr. Orci around, I agree with RDR on this Comment: At the end of the day, Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm is the kick in the butt that Paramout needed to ensure the strong continuation of it’s “Star Trek” film franchise. Even though it might result in J.J Abrams only producing, not directing, the third Trek movie.

Also Craiger, Movies solely aimed at the fan based for Star Trek haven’t done well outside Search for Spock, Nemesis was made purely for fans and it bombed, if not for Star Trek 09 we would have no new Star Trek Movies to talk about at all that is how bad Nemesis did, the only thing that got us Trek Back was 09 movie and new take. Now Star Trek II, III,IV,VI and First Contact all did well at the box office bu they were weak in comparsion to TMP and 2009. for Parmount Star Trek has to be a Money Maker.

I think the re-booting of Star Trek was a great idea and brought us back to the root of Trek, which was Kirk, Spock and McCoy. I look forward to the new movie and I look forward to a 3rd movie by the current writers and producers (the director is obviously up in the air).
However, I want to suggest again what has been suggested by numerous others — the “next” Star Trek should be with all-new characters and an all-new orientation. I think of all the Treks that followed TOS, DS9 is the series that showed us it could work. Star Trek doesn’t have to keep rehashing itself ad infinitum. The VOY concept could have worked… even as a dramatic film… but it got sucked back into the “Star Trek as usual.”
The Supreme Court did a great job of shaking Trek up. I think next it should be spun on its head…

#1617 – They did wait 5 years after the Toby Maguire films to reboot Spiderman again. I actually thought they really didn’t need to reboot them anyway because they were just showing how he became Spiderman again. Plus more people know how Spiderman got his powers then how Kirk and crew got together.

Even if Abrams doesn’t return to helm a third “Trek,” Malmat cautions upset fans to look at the bigger picture. “As important as directors are, it’s the story that counts,” she says. “As long as the story is good, the third rebooted ‘Trek’ movie will be just fine. Just don’t expect lots of lens flare.”

I don’t know if re-boot is the right word after Trek 13. I’d disagree with the observation that the public is used to this new cast, they have seen them once. .What’s more likely is the cast would be given the chance to do more movies, if they didn’t want to, they would be replaced. No one is under any illusion that this group of actors will be reprising their roles into their sixties. That, and these guys are not nearly as typecast as Shatner and Nimoy were when TOS ended it’s run. No one is sitting around saying they can’t imagine life without Chris Pine playing Kirk. The Bond movies recast their lead every few years, it would not kill Trek to do the same….

You mean like how Steve Jobs was on the boards of both PIXAR and Apple?

1609. Red Dead Ryan – January 30, 2013

You type that as if STAR WARS doesn’t have a die-hard, often fanatical and somewhat fundamentalist fan base. I often wonder if Abrams as gotten himself into something he didn’t anticipate believing himself to be one of them.

#1623. Craiger – January 30, 2013

As many times as teenagers keep getting older and replaced by new ones? I’d say the span of high school: 4 years.

Yea, I thought for sure Anthony would have posted something by now. This is unacceptable. And you are right; I am embarrassed for him. I mean this is his own site that is suppose to be covering the new movie, right?

1615. Agreed. I’d argue that there’s nothing iconic about those particular characters, except maybe Picard. And their stories never really worked well on the big screen.

I love the idea of TOS-aged Kirk and Spock having these incredible big budget adventures. We never got to see that. Picard struggling with ethics in his ready room? We’ve seen that, and it was already done pretty perfectly.

There was always a sense that TOS was Kirk’s heyday. But you didn’t get that sense with Picard in TNG, even though they tried to make it seem like he was raring for one last adventure in the movies — it usually seemed like Picard was very happy and wiser than he’d ever been in the present, even in his 60s.

When I say its “unacceptable,” I am speaking of Anthony not meeting his own great standards that he use to achieved on this site. It should be unacceptable to him — he set the standard here and still boldly proclaims at the top of this web page: The Source for Everything New in Trek.

He’s not meeting his own standard that he boldy and publicly set, and still proclaims here for all to see. Of course that should be unacceptable to him.

TrekWeb is another source I use. They don’t put up some bold proclamation that claims they are “THE” trek source. So I don’t hold them to as high a standard as I do this site, which flat out says to public its “THE SOURCE” for everything new in Trek.

If you are going to “talk the talk”, then don’t act so surprised when people comment when fail to “walk the walk”.

BTW. I never thought The Amazing Spider-Man was unnecessary. The origin is an essential part of Spidey — you can’t have a brand-new teenaged Spidey in a brand new universe without showing how he got there. Sure, we saw it for Macguire. But this is a whole other web head entirely.

So Anthony’s working, to some degree, on the comics. Has he crossed over onto the production side of Trek?

@1637. Its a for-profit site with click ads, so their is a customer-service provide relationship here for us frequent visitors to his site. If we stop coming, he get’s less ad revenue. So yea, he does owe us a quality site or his wallet suffers.

I would be during the heavy movie interest periods like right now, the site is bringing in at least $1000/month in ad revenue. I know for a fact that the underlying software is somehow keeping track of my web surfing, because I constantly get targeted ads on this site based on other sites I have visited.

@1640. But I skipped on seeing the movie, along with millions of others, because of the been-there-done that nature of ANOTHER Spiderman origin story. I still haven’t bothered to get around to seeing it even though my younger son has the Blu-Ray.

1640. Yep, a pretty popular opinion. Entire filn reviews said it was a good movie but shouldn’t have been made. But it was made, and it works. I’d suggest you give it a shot. Keep your expectations low. In my opinion, It works a lot better, I think, than Raimi’s did. It’s a much smaller movie — which makes sense, Spidey ‘s not Superman. There are weak spots, sure, but it’s more like Spider-Man (and much more like Ultimate Spider-Man, which I loved) than Raimi’s movie. And the origin works for thos Peter Parker — the basics are there (Spider bite/WTF I gave powers?/sad, dead Uncle Ben) but it’s a whole different tune. I gotta admit: I didn’t really like Raimi’s Spider-Man… it never found the right balance between maufactured you-should-care-about-this reality and comic-campy (but that scene in Spider-Man 2, on the train when gets unmasked, made me weep). And this is anathema, but I actually prefer Spidey 3 to the first one, Topher Grace aside. Spidey 2 is a good movie period (better than 3).

The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie period (despite a few contrivances and hokey touches), not just a good Spider-Man movie.

1640. Yep, a pretty popular opinion. Entire filn reviews said it was a good movie but shouldn’t have been made. But it was made, and it works. I’d suggest you give it a shot. Keep your expectations low. In my opinion, It works a lot better, I think, than Raimi’s did. It’s a much smaller movie — which makes sense, Spidey ‘s not Superman. There are weak spots, sure, but it’s more like Spider-Man (and much more like Ultimate Spider-Man, which I loved) than Raimi’s movie. And the origin works for thos Peter Parker — the basics are there (Spider bite/WTF I gave powers?/sad, dead Uncle Ben) but it’s a whole different tune. I gotta admit: I didn’t really like Raimi’s Spider-Man… it never found the right balance between maufactured you-should-care-about-this reality and comic-campy (but that scene in Spider-Man 2, on the train when gets unmasked, made me weep). And this is anathema, but I actually prefer Spidey 3 to the first one, Topher Grace aside. Spidey 2 is a good movie period (better than 3).

The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie period (despite a few contrivances and hokey touches), not just a good Spider-Man movie.

Webb even got booed for not including the ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ line (he didn’t include because it was expected, and because it would have pulled people out of the movie). I think not using it was great, and I hope they keep it out of this next one, if anybody who happens to be, say, writing a Spider-Man sequel is listening.

@1644. OK, I’ll give it a shot soon and let you know. I liked the first Spiderman though — William Defoe is one of my favorite actors, and I’ve always loved Cliff Robertson. I thought Spiderman 2 and 3 tried to do too much.

Why are they making an Entourage movie…aren’t those guys all like well into their 40’s now? It’s just not believable. Their should pair them up with the Sex and the City girls and do an Over The Hill Gang reboot. LOL

What are you gonna get new out of a comic book movie? The Raini movies also gave us nothing we hadn’t seen in the comics? What, Peter Parker should have been a lesbian accountant bitten by a chinchilla in Panama City in the 1890s?

10-4. Cool. Yeah, Sp3 was a mess, don’t get me wrong. I love Dafoe, I hated that damned GG costume. Love Robertson, was annoyed that that damned Raimi Olds took centre stage in his death scene… as I recall (?). Also, the whole concept of organic web shooters was dumb. Sure, it led to endless splooge jokes from reviewers, but dumb.

I liked that TASpM gave Spidey his shooters back. Maybe I have no imagination.

I agree with your sentiment. I think he would be more thrilled, given that he already said he was more of a Star Wars fan growing up. This is a dream come true for him.

We’ll see how it turns out.

@ 1592 Craiger

I really don’t know how non-Trek fans would get the idea that Trek films had more “science” in them. For whatever reasons mainstream interest in Trek dwindled until Trek11 recharged it.

I don’t really Star Wars hurting the upcoming movie in any way. Paramount wouldn’t let that happen as they have put quite a bit of money into this thing.

Even so, Episode VII is a long ways off so the films wouldn’t even compete at the box office. Part of me thinks that people trying to have the franchises but imaginary heads are looking for drama where there isn’t any.

1619. Greg Stamper

I wish the announcement would be:
“I making this movie for fans of movies, period.”

That’s not the Disney Corp I know. They want it all. That’s why they’re not content with simple copyright expiration, and move heaven, earth and congress every 5 to 10 years to rewrite copyright so they don’t lose a dime from the mouse.

Sorry, I just don’t buy it that Disney hired JJ with no market projected goals that their number crunchers came up with. There has to be at least incentives far in excess of anything that Paramount could have offered for making historic record takes.

Fired up the computer to compare. Did hard resets on both. Mobile still shows the message of yours which I replied to as 1608 but computer shows 1603. So 5messages have been deleted and renumberings rippling through. Well subtract 5 if my reference doesn’t jell. I’m going to bed and hope it stabilizes in the morning.

#1662(1657?). MJ

You were justifying Abrams 2 different takes on fans and whether his movies should have different approaches in addressing them based on the misperception that SW has to room to grow with non-fans.

“STAR TREK — THE MOTION PICTURE, released in December, 1979, grossed $170 million world-wide, but was not considered successful because of its $50 million plus production cost.” – Lou Gaul, Entertainment Editor of the New Jersey BURLINGTON COUNTY TIMES, OVERKILL CAN KILL A MOVIE, column 3 paragraph 1 of article

Anthony, if you’re reading this, please do away with the comment sections in your articles. They do nothing but kill the vibe of your website. It always de-evolves into fighting and trolling and it makes your site look bad.

People will claim vehemently that they’ll stop coming to this site if you do kill the comments section, but I suspect you know good and well that Trek fans will still come here like moths to a flame with or without a comments section.

As it is, the comments that appear in nearly every article are embarassing and continue to put a black eye on all that is good about your site.

1527 MJ,
Trust me I Still read The articles and occasionally scroll through here, I just dont post any longer
Cause I got sick of all The endless bickering.
You dont see that over at Trekcore, where people can disagree, but Still be
Civil.

In anycase I never said it would never go that low.
I said it would be a long time before it did, and guess what it took atleast 4 yrs for it to. And its Still not dropped below 110 for The complete series on mainstream retailers.

Oh incase anyone didnt hear, CBS is releasing a Best Of Both worlds ”feature length” cut on Bluray as individial release same day season 3 hits blu.
P.S. And MJ its IS My WookieBitch not WAS lol!
Ok back to my self imposed TrekMovie commemtz exile ;-)

I agree with you. Although I thought the reporting that it made $170 million rather than the oft quoted “$139 million” was more significant. Also this same source in a November 1979 article says Paramount would get $50 million in the bank from Blind Bid advances from making its premier on time which it did.

“The new film, titled Interstellar, is said to be based on scientific theories developed by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist, gravitational physicist and astrophysicist at Caltech, the California Institute of Technology. Described as complex and multilayered, it will centre on a group of space explorers who travel through a wormhole.”

Interesting stuff. Sounds like Star Trek in all but name ;)

DMDuncan, re: #1582:

“When the topic is replacing JJ we’re talking about replacing directors. Who is the hotshot young director with his kind of influence, who is also a Star Trek fan, who is going to replace him?”

Christopher Nolan increasingly looks like a suitable choice. I don’t know if he’s actually a Star Trek fan (maybe someone should ask him ? Bob Orci ?), but the plot summary for his next film shows Nolan definitely has an interest in exactly the kind of subjects that many would say Star Trek is supposed to be all about. It could just be a happy coincidence…or maybe Nolan has been a secret Trekkie all along ;)

^^That post was by me. You see, in Hindi, the letters “j” and “i” are interchangeable and…ah, phooey, who am I trying to kid. I just clicked the wrong button when typing my name.

I’d also like to add that the Dr Evil-style photo at the top — with JJ cocking his head to one side and touching his finger to his mouth — looks suspiciously like JJ is thinking “One BILLION dollars !”…

Star Wars is a different animal than Star Trek. Star Wars has always had a more rabid and diverse fanbase and was always a movie series that was popular with a general audience. There’s really nothing that can make it appeal to an even bigger audience. Its going to be a huge movie no matter what and will probably break records.

”That year[2006], the corporate behemoth Viacom, which owned “Star Trek,” was splitting itself in two, divorcing its CBS studio (which made the “Trek” shows) from its Paramount studio (which made the films). “Trek” was likely to go to CBS, where another television show might eventually be developed. Gail Berman, then the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)” – Dave Itzkoff, NEW YORK TIMES

Isn’t a moot point in discussing why Anthony doesn’t update this site? When or if he comes back and updates it he wont say why he has been gone or what’s happening with the status of Trek movie and why he takes off for long periods of time. No one will ask why Anthony takes these month long or longer breaks either. I think he knows that and he can allways count on his loyal viewers to be here and that we will be happy just to finally have updates. I think that is why he feels he can take off for so long.

“….Because it is utter baloney that the STAR WARS attendance can’t be improved upon and Disney doesn’t care to aim to so do.”
________

I concur.
George Lucas is a good businessman :

“…The great things about Disney….is that, you know, between the parks and all the things they got going, it’s great that we have a chance to probably expand that…there’s lots and lots of opportunities with Disney that we wouldn’t have with any other studio etc…”

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems incredibly counter productive to announce that you are directing a film of a “rival franchise” while you are supposed to be doing promotion of the film that needs to be promoted (badly)…just seems a bit backwards and possibly telling of either the film or the individual.

I guess we shall see in May. I’m thinking the film will be great, but who knows…

Robman007, you are absolutely spot-on. However, I wouldn’t put the ‘rival franchise’ thing at the top of the list of errors.

While Disney has been spewing endlessly about JJ joining the team, and we have loads of details, Paramount is doing its usual ‘reverse-marketing’ by saying absolutely nothing. You sometimes wonder if they even know about it.

We’re three days out from the SuperBowl trailer, and there is buzz from the Iron Man and Volkswagen camps already. Star Trek? Nothing. Just like their reaction to JJ getting filched. No comment.

Paramount/Bad Robot, or however it works, should be looking at their top ten list of new directors as we speak, and should throw it out to fans on all the usual sites (cough! Brad Bird cough!) . Stop treating “Star Trek” like the third Olsen Twin

Rumor has it in the modeling community that they have decided on a size of the Enterprise for Star Trek Into Darkness instead of being ambiguous. They say this one is more in line with TOS Enterprise size.

I dunno. It just seems odd. The marketing strategy of this film seems beyond bizarre at times. They waiting to reveal the name of the villian, when it’s just a cookie cutter name that was not fitting of secrecy (unless he is actually Captain April)…it was heavily pushed in December..then nothing (except a comic book that ONLY trek fans will read)….

..then you have the director of said film getting more attention then his film that is due out in 4 months, all because he took a job on what the main stream audience considers a “rival franchise”….that alone is getting far more attention then a film that Paramount considers a “tent pole summer block buster…(it seems like Nemesis had more promotion)

It just seems so damn backwards and the secrecy so frustratingly obnoxious (or, secrecy disguising a piss poor marketing plan)…Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want spoilers extreme, but I’d like to see the film get it’s due promotion, especially when the future of the franchise is in it’s hands..

I saw that scale and size for the Enterprise and did a little of my own math. Please be kind as I am terrible at math and figuring things out. Also as an American I convert from metric to stone age. So please forgive that as well.

I am figuring that the JJprise is now 958 feet long. I like that. It also seems to concur with what you smarter folks have figured out. That pic of the model still illustrates that it has some odd viewing angles, though. I have to admit that it is growing on me. Not too keen on the submersible aspect but I will wait to see how it plays out in the movie.

And AJ I am totally with you. Where the heck is Paramount in all of this “JJ directs Star Wars” stuff? No announcement, no nothing. If one were given to conspiracy theories you would wonder if Paramount is deliberately trying to sabotage Star Trek or run their own studios into the ground for some nefarious purpose. Really odd.

uh JAJ,
you do realize that Christopher Nolan is a BIGGER name than JJ Abrams right? its not like JJ has directed a movie that is one of the 4 highest grossing movies of all time. heck he hasn’t even made a movie thats cracked the top 10 movies of all time list.
Not only that that him and his production company are firmly entrenched at Warner Bros, its been his home since his pretty much his career started

JJ started at Buena Vista(Disney) then signed a deal at paramount and is now once more going to be making a film at Disney.

“You are woefully uninformed. Abrams said his infamous line in response to Disney sending him a SW treatment after announcing the acquisition.”

Fine, I concede that my timing was off. (“Woefully” uninformed? How dramatic.) However, all my other points still hold. Abrams can work on more than one thing. Between Trek and Wars, it doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. And, above all, Abrams’ career is Abrams’ business, not ours. If you like what he’s putting out there in the market, then consume it. If not, then don’t.

Suggesting that Paramount would sabotage a 165MM dollar investment isn’t the stuff of conspiracy, its just a non issue. The second GI Joe was a dog, and they pumped additional money into it to fix it, they didn’t walk away from it. Theres no reason to suspect they would do any different with Trek12 if it had problems….

Seriously, you really need to catch up. See this site’s owner interview at mtv.com cited by me in message 1218 with pertinent passage quoted message 1221 as for why your reasoning that began with faulty information is still uninformed and unsound.

Also, there is the impatience of one Les Moonves noted in my message 1679.

“Seriously, you really need to catch up. See this site’s owner interview at mtv.com cited by me in message 1218 with pertinent passage quoted message 1221 as for why your reasoning that began with faulty information is still uninformed and unsound.

Also, there is the impatience of one Les Moonves noted in my message 1679.”
_______

Very strange post.

I’m going to assume this was written by “someone other ” than you.

should I be mistaken, my apologies.

That said, I personally found the tone of your post unnecessarily rude.

I think Treks coolest frontiers are under seige by Disney. They can’t buy out Lorimar so they’ve seriously weakened Treks shields by targeting Paramounts technological movie defenses at BadRobot. J.J. Abrams first and foremost duty is to protect and direct Star Trek which he has done in style…. Its his duty, hes a Star Trek Movie Director! Wheres Picard when you need him? … but seriously now Disney are swooping in low like romulans in a bird of prey. Star Trek had Abrams first who is the greatest directing…..) but I feel conflicted what is Abrams now? Rescuer of aging sci-fi franchises? Treks Number 1 Director, The Galactic Star Trek Movie Director sounds weak too. Seriously I need help on this one guys, what do we call him now?

I think Treks coolest frontiers are under seige by Disney. They can’t buy out Lorimar so they’ve seriously weakened Treks shields by targeting Paramounts technological movie defenses at BadRobot. J.J. Abrams first and foremost duty is to protect and direct Star Trek which he has done in style…. Its his duty, hes a Star Trek Movie Director! Wheres Picard when you need him? … but seriously now Disney are swooping in low like romulans in a bird of prey. Star Trek had Abrams first who is the greatest directing…..) but I feel conflicted what is Abrams now? Rescuer of aging sci-fi franchises? Treks Number 1 Director, The Galactic Star Trek Movie Director sounds weak too. Seriously I need help on this one guys, what do we call him now?

One thing I’ve learned from Rose (as in Keachick) is that those I perceive possessing the gift of a female intellect are far more clued in to what emotional state my words may evoke than I. As I believe you to be so gifted, I will heed your counsel.

But first I’ll try to recapture my thoughts just to be sure nothing is getting lost in translation.

Aashlee was replying to my reply addressing a specific fact she had gotten wrong and devoted an entire paragraph in her 408 post. My reply in post 528 addressed the falseness of that fact and bemoaned the the false conclusions derived from that one fact.

Loooooooooooong after 528 was posted Aashlee decides to reply, clearly reading through the this thread from the top and stopping at my 528 but rudely not holding her reply till all the thread’s contents have been digested by her so that she can make a far more salient response tome in the 1700s. Instead, I get a reply that distills down its essence to: “Yes I [Aashlee] was wrong, but it doesn’t matter, because I’m right.

This non sequitur gives me severe cognitive dissonance such that Spock, himself, would shudder. I then craft a reply 1714.

“Seriously…catchup” My thoughts were she needs to read the rest of the thread to avoid retreading misnomers, and other “facts” no longer in evidence.

I may have been channeling Kirk/NOMAD but don’t I get points for not blurting out, “You are flawed, and imperfect! Execute your primary function!”? ;)

Okay, Star Wars makes much more money and it took our director. I could say Star Trek is smarter and argue that point but it occurred to me that the Star Trek films have it in spades over Star Wars in this one respect-

@1719. I don’t know, there are some serious negative points for Dr. Crushers close up in First Contact, when we are looking up her nose. Try as they might, the Klingon women will never, ever be sexy…..

“…..But first I’ll try to recapture my thoughts just to be sure nothing is getting lost in translation.”
___________

Having followed the discussion from the start, I understood what happened, but, I appreciate the effort.

Thanks.

“….. was replying to my reply addressing a specific fact she had gotten wrong and devoted an entire paragraph in her 408 post. My reply in post 528 addressed the falseness of that fact and bemoaned the the false conclusions derived from that one fact.

1668. Bobbi – January 31, 2013
“Anthony, if you’re reading this, please do away with the comment sections in your articles. They do nothing but kill the vibe of your website. It always de-evolves into fighting and trolling and it makes your site look bad. People will claim vehemently that they’ll stop coming to this site if you do kill the comments section, but I suspect you know good and well that Trek fans will still come here like moths to a flame with or without a comments section. As it is, the comments that appear in nearly every article are embarassing and continue to put a black eye on all that is good about your site.”

Bobby, I really don’t appreciate you trying to dictate terms to me on how I choose to operate this site. Please get a backbone and stop whining.

Since Anthony’s return, the message numbering system has been in flux between my handheld mobile device and my computer. For whatever reason my handheld shows 5 more old messages than apparently you all and my computer sees. It This throws my message number reference off by 5 and is very odd because for the handheld all the new messages are being received but whatever software/server is feeding it this web page is not removing what are for everyone else deleted messages. To that end I’ll try to repair the message references:

MJ, in my 1656 post and mentioned in your 1657 I was replying to your 1603 post.

LaForge_To_Bridge in my 1659 I was replying to your 1655 post.

Aashlee in my 1709 I was replying to your 1707. The message numbers I wished for you to peruse for articles cited were my 1216, and my 1674. My 1221 was part of the purge and merely a convenient reiteration of what was in the cited mtv article.

Aurore see the above ^ for my correct links you quoted in your 1710. My reply at 1718 was meant for the same message of yours,1710. The reply that a referenced as 1714 appears to you as 1709.

#1722. Aurore – February 1, 2013

Then I will defer to whatever course of action that you suggest I follow but I ask that you bear in mind that all these numbers spinning around because of deleted posts for one device and not the other, is very frustrating.

I bow to Aurore Khan, her’s is the superior intellect in such matters. I have digested her words and reread mine in that light and I believe I owe you an apology for uncalled for snark in my reply. I am sorry. My apologies.

It is I (along with a certain message system) that is flawed and imperfect. *BOOM*

“….Then I will defer to whatever course of action that you suggest I follow but I ask that you bear in mind that all these numbers spinning around because of deleted posts for one device and not the other, is very frustrating.”
_______

:))

Priceless!

I respectfully disagree.

The numbers “spinning around” are not an issue. They never were.

When following a discussion what matters above all, to me, is the content of the posts.

Thus, I can assure you that “repairing” the message references was unnecessary ….Thank you, nonetheless…

”It took more than a month for Abrams to officially commit to “Star Wars,” and during that period, he continued to tell his associates that he was not signed to the project. Finally, he signed to the movie on Jan. 25, after a day of what was called “furious negotiation.”” – Michael Santo

“(Arndt’s treatment) will bring the saga of the Skywalkers,…, to a close in a new trilogy.” – The Hollywood Reporter.

”The story is said to focus on a new generation of heroes and would feature appearances by Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in older incarnations of their beloved characters from the original Star Wars trilogy.
…
The most recent rumors suggest the film could be based around a female protagonist.” – Cole Hill, LATINOS POST

“Sources have said not to discount the possibility that a number of characters from previous STAR WARS films could reappear – even the dead Jedis, who have a habit of showing up in spirit form.” – The Hollywood Reporter,

Really? That’s all you got? For a troll you sure have a weak game. How many Hot Pockets did you have to burn as you were digging through old comments so you could cherry pick those horrifically condemning posts of mine? You really showed me. Now the whole world knows I’m a sarcastic knerck. Whatever shall I do?

OK sweet cakes you wanna dance? I hope you brought a spare pair of shoes. Tell you what, we can have a little Trek debate over the merits and minuses of the current state of the franchise. You can pick the line of discussion. Or we can just do the dozens and see who is the better armed in a battle of insults. Makes no difference to me.

With your trollish comments you have picked a fight and failed to make a friend. I’ll stop by from time to time today to see if you’ve packed a lunch.

Let me see if I got this right. You’re complaining about a comment that THX made regarding spacerguy’s nonsensical comment in 1712. THX made a joke that he must be J.J. Abrams. (1714) Funny as always. (By the way click on Spacerguy’s blog and you find a blog that’s well put together.)

You got upset because, God forbid, anyone say anything bad about J.J. Abrams. Lost sucks. Oops sorry. You then dug around some old comments of THX to make him look like a hypocrite? First, THX may criticize Abrams Trek but he respects if not likes the 2009 movie from my memories of his posts. Second, you spent time looking at THX’s posts on this site? Yeesh. That’s a lot of research. I got an idea. Spend some quality time. Why don’t you discuss my comment in 1719 that the Star Trek films have the hotter chicks than Star Wars. :-)

Third, I wouldn’t pick a fight with THX. He has a powerful ally in the force, er…. in Mongo.

@1730. Chris Pine is one of those actors who is much easier on the eye then the ears. Abrams is a good director, but a Sci-Fi genius? Not so much. I can live with a new director for Trek 13….and I could live with someone else playing Kirk, too.

Like I have acknowledged in the past (and on this very thread) I have shown a tendency to get into stupid arguments or to lace my comment with a bit too much acidity. Sorry bou’ tha’.

And also for the record I did enjoy Trek 09. I went to the theater a couple of times to see it and I bought the bluray when it came out. I am just grumpy about an origins story taking place in the AU. The concept leaves me cold, sort of like I didn’t get to see the origins story in the Prime universe. Just how different was the same event in the two timelines? I mean, look at all the other stuff that was changed. So maybe I still feel a little short-changed when it comes to getting the origins story I hoped for. And I do feel that a part of why JJ wanted it to take place in the AU was so that he could put his own stamp on it. I interpret this to be an act of hubris to some degree. My feelings, which are my own and I speak for no one else, is that Star Trek belongs to me. And you. And all of the fans of Star Trek that were fans before JJ got a hold of the property. As such I feel a little entitled (ugh bad word, bad word!). I want the stories to be for me.

So there you have it. I have made plain my position and have even exposed and admitted to my faults. I Love Star Trek. And I love arguments (erm…debates).

That’s a bit the reason why I like to think that this new universe is a total reboot (ala, the past was changed so the future is uncertain)….except that Nimoy Spock was “caught in the red matter black hole time tunnel of creating new stories” just like the Enterprise-E was when the Borg sphere created that “time vortex” that was responsible for the show “Enterprise”..

That’s one of the nice things about being a fan of a fictional series. You can make whatever you want official cannon or not. I choose to think that Shatners “novels” are cannon, because that fate is much easier to swallow then the fate he was given in Generations…

…see, we can’t blame the AU for ruining things..First Contact started that up by informing Mr Cochrane of the future, so he went ahead an had the first Warp 5 vessel named Enterprise…Blame First Contact,

“And I do feel that a part of why JJ wanted it to take place in the AU was so that he could put his own stamp on it. I interpret this to be an act of hubris to some degree.”

Personally, I have a feeling that this whole project started off as an honest to god reboot of the whole damn show. They added Nimoy as Spock to play the older version of Quinto Spock (and as a nod to the original show)…

I’d bet that was the intent, then it was decided to place the whole damn thing in an AU so that they would not alienate and piss off the hard core elite of Trek fans how would boycott the film because it made their DVD collection disappear (and some would think along those lines…no joke).

My only gripe about the new film (other then the rapid promotions and fake Alternate Reality crap) was the Enterprise. I LOVE the original, and In a Mirror Darkly proved the original Enterprise could be done in CGI and look great.

I would not even have cared if the ship interior was changed..just LEAVE THE GIRL ALONE!

then again, I did find myself actually liking the new Enterprise, so what gives. It was not as ugly as the Enterprise D. That ship was the ugly wanda of all the Enterprise ships (not as bad as Voyager, but still ugly)…

Okay let me clarify my joke about saying something bad about J.J. Abrams. (1742) “Lost” does not suck except for the season six which dragged down the whole series. The decline started in the fifth season episode “The Incident” and it finally jumped the shark with sixth season episode, “Across the sea.” Show became a religious show. Refusal to answer many questions could be an excuse for no answers. Maybe they weren’t going to tell us anyway. Oh and I really hated his produced monster movie “Cloverfield.” Dumb kids. Goofy first person camera gimmick. I rooted for the monster. Please dear monster kill those dumb kids and end this silly movie. But for my sins, I hope the Lord Abrams does not have me banished from his science fiction kingdom.

I did like Super 8. I love Fringe; still trying to figure out if Walter doesn’t exist then how does Peter? Did I get that right? ;-)

Well thought out rebuttals and interesting perspective. I very much agree with a lot of what you are saying about making canon your own. And probably where I get my own delusions of grandeur where Star Trek is concerned. I’ve watched the damn thing for so long I think I had something to do with it. BTW, I particularly liked what you said about the crew of the EE messing with the timeline vis a vis their contact with Cochrane. For all we know he would have named the ship the Phoenix II.

In the category of “You Had Me”:

“My only gripe about the new film (other then the rapid promotions and fake Alternate Reality crap) was the Enterprise. I LOVE the original, and In a Mirror Darkly proved the original Enterprise could be done in CGI and look great.”

Absolutely. Even though I have come around to the looks of the new E (particularly in light of the fact that it’s scale has been revised, at least according to Revell Germany, to that of the original series E. Never made sense that the Enterprise would balloon to the size of a Star Destroyer but keep the same features of the Prime uni E. Of course Rick Sternbach goes and does that exact same thing with the BoP in the Haynes manual to explain the huge discrepancies in it’s filmed version dimensions.)

You lost me:

“then again, I did find myself actually liking the new Enterprise, so what gives. It was not as ugly as the Enterprise D. That ship was the ugly wanda of all the Enterprise ships (not as bad as Voyager, but still ugly)…”

Can’t agree with you there my friend. I LOVE the D. I love the over-sized ovoid saucer section. I love the shape of the secondary hull. And I love the just plain “robustness” of the ship in general. What I don’t like is the Enterprise E. It just looks to me like they had a meeting and said “We need a starship that looks like a speed boat.” and ended up with that. I didn’t like Kirk getting killed in Generations. And I REALLY didn’t like the D getting destroyed in the movie, either, although I have to admit that the saucer crash may be some of the best ship miniature FX ever filmed.

And BB, I just couldn’t get into Lost or Fringe. I liked Cloverfield if for no other reason than I am a sucker for what I call “Big Bug Films”. I just like to see a giant monster wreak havoc in a city. I suffer from Creature Feature syndrome.

It would be politically incorrect for me to describe what how I feel about the look of the Enterprise D, so I won’t bother putting that into this forum (it’s not hate related, but I won’t go there)…

I didn’t like that it was a pansy who got it’s butt whupped all the time. I didn’t like how it was destroyed. They klingon ship found out it’s shield modulation frequency (or whatever techno babble they called it)…I thought all ships were upgraded with a rotating frequency because of the Borg? Then, if you start getting whacked like that, why not alpha strike and destroy that crazy little bird in one strike.

I always assumed there were different classes of the BoP. There was the original film scout ship and the Next Generation era “heavy cruiser” variant.

The Enterprise E suffered from Voyager syndrome. It was not pretty. It was not as ugly as the Voyager, but it was not pretty. I always thought the Enterprise C should have been the D. Infact, the only TNG era ship I thought looked ok was the Defiant class ship.

I HATED what they did to the Excelsior for Generations. Give it stupid wings and crap spiking off the nacelles and primary hull. Please.

Oh, and speaking of the Excelsior, I understand that the basic design premise for that ship was to specifically BE ugly and ungainly. This was so that average film goers would be able to tell it from the Enterprise yet still be able to recognize them as being from the same fleet. Since the Enterprise was the “good guys” the Excelsior had to be the ‘bad guys” and therefore ugly.

Not quite, I was born with an eidetic memory but faded to merely good memory in my teens. Got a deep appreciation for the mature woman in exchange.

#1743. Phil.

Rooted in my being an audio/visual geek early on, I don’t have a problem with others performing the roles and I don’t mind the original actors continuing to explore the roles in radio, animation, etc. As for directors, every episode of the first series seemed to have a different one from the previos week’s.

#1755. Phil

SNL had Sir Patrick perform a skit based on this LOVEBOAT premise. I was lucky enough to attend a Con where he gave a talk and auctioned the starship/Loveboat model that SNL had worked up, for charity. He got so concerned that the young couple that had won the bid had bid far outside its true worth and their means that he took it upon himself to get the cast of TNG to autograph it to make it closer in worth to what they had bid.

“Not quite, I was born with an eidetic memory but faded to merely good memory in my teens.”
_____

Indeed.
I am sorry.

Months ago, I remember reading that your eidetic memory had “kicked in” when you were two years old.

….More recently, you apologised for failing to accurately remember a piece of information from a book , stating that the reason you thought you could have remembered said information was a bad habit borne of having an eidetic memory in your preteen years…

But, all this is irrelevant , I obviously seriously need to “catch up” as it were ; you were born with an eidetic memory which faded to merely good memory in your teens….

No, it is probably my fault. I find in my late 50s that memories are just not what they once were. It’s seems the brain tries to reconstitute things and fill in the blanks.

I think I was blurring my currently earliest accessible memory which is from my 2nd year of life with my eidetic memory, two related but different things as in, I was treating them as interchangeable but they’re not. Of course now, I have no perfect recourse to it so I can’t definitively answer when exactly it begin. I just assume at birth because I was always praised as a quick learner. However, if exactly pinning it down is of interest I have several relatives (none eidetic) that I could poll for a consensus. From that year of the earliest memory I have hazy recollections of being able to recall images before that time. I think because they weren’t filed with associated word indexing I was fascinated by that. But it’s frustrating not being able to do as what once was done. But then being able to forget is a blessing that I don’t think I’d want to give up to return to those thrilling feats of yesteryear.